On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 10:13:01PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: <snip> > > But I'd have a hard time ignoring it for a license that said: > > > > If you are an educational institution, you may follow the terms of > > the > > X11 license. > > > > If you are a non-profit or other non-commercial entity, you may > > follow > > the terms of the DFCL. > > > > If you are a commercial entity or publisher, you must follow the > > terms > > of the GPL. > > > > and I imagine you would, too. > > Uh, actually, no. If I saw the above language in the latest project on > Freshmeat, I'd probably wonder what the hell the author was thinking, > and I think he should have a good reason for licensing his work this > way. But I do not think it's illegitimate on its face, nor do I think > that it violates DFSG 6. > > Keep it mind what DFSG 6 literally says: > > No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the > program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not > restrict the program from being used in a business, or from > being used for genetic research. > > Strictly speaking, if you restrict people in a certain field of endeavor > from *modifying* or *distributing* the work, you're not violating the > letter of DFSG 6. So you are saying that a license that says something along the lines of: 'you may use this program in any way, the Debian project may distribute this program in any way it sees fit, however no one else may distribute this program in any manner for any reason' Would be perfectly alright as far as DFSG 6 goes? I would argue that distributing is a form of use. (Yes, this license would violate 1, 5, and 8 even if 6 is fine, but it makes the point.) -- 1024D/E65A7801 Zephaniah E. Hull <warp@babylon.d2dc.net> 92ED 94E4 B1E6 3624 226D 5727 4453 008B E65A 7801 CCs of replies from mailing lists are requested.
Attachment:
pgp44fpJ4kXrr.pgp
Description: PGP signature