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

Re: LPPL and non-discrimination

Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net> writes:

> On Mon, 5 May 2003, Jonathan Fine wrote:
>> Two contributions have said, for various reasons, that the
>> guideline does not apply in this situation.
> I will say it too.  It's come up before, and been agreed that as long as 
> it does not discriminate to the point that it is non-free for any person, 
> group, or field of endeavor, then it is free.

That isn't quite the consensus I've seen.  For example, a license
which claimed to be MIT/X11 for educators only, and GNU GPL for
non-educators only, would, I argue, be unfree[1].  There needs to be a
single free path through the license available to everybody; at that
point, the license is effectively reduced to that set of conditions
and is free.

> Dual-licensing has never been considered by Debian to be discriminatory,
> as long as there's a free license available to every person, group, and
> field of endeavor.

I think this hints at something closer to what I've seen.


[1]  In addition, it would be internally inconsistent if it tried to
     prevent educators from distributing further under the MIT/X11
     license, or non-educators from distributing further under the GPL.

Brian T. Sniffen                                        bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: