[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: cdrdao license issues show that cdrtools package is non DFSG, too?



On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:09:04AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Hmm? 
> 
> Given the choice of the dual licenses:
>    "You can take my software, and use it under the GPL"
>  or
>    "You can take my software, and use it under something that
>     sort of looks like the GPL, but does't allow you to modify
>     files foo.c, bar.c, or baz.c in this certain way."
> doesn't make too much sense.
> 
> Well, legally, maybe it does.

Correct.

> But practically, everyone would take the first license, and just
> forget the second one.

Probably.  But that's not *our* problem.

> GPL dual-licensing only works when you want to remove GPL-imposed
> restrictions.

Strictly speaking, our concerns are only whether a license is
legimitate, and whether it's DFSG-free.  IMO we should also issue
advisory opinions on licensing when asked that will make it easier for
us to fulfill our Social Contract (e.g., mindless license proliferation
is not good for the Free Software community).

However, that someone would wwant to dual-license a work under the GPL
and something extremely unpalatable shouldn't really concern us.

Your example above is a poor one because licensors often offer some kind
of carrot to offset the stick, e.g., waiving the must-distribute-source
requirement of the GPL.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |      Never underestimate the power of
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      human stupidity.
branden@debian.org                 |      -- Robert Heinlein
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpQt08XkeQem.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: