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

Re: LPPL and non-discrimination

> Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net> 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[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.

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    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  

Reply to: