Re: LPPL and non-discrimination
> Mark Rafn <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > 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.
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> 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. 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.
You are correct, I was being sloppy in my thinking. A dual-licensed
package is free IFF at least one of the available licenses is free. In
your example, neither of the options are free (MIT only for educators is
non-free, and GPL-for-non-educators is non-free).
Mark Rafn email@example.com <http://www.dagon.net/>