Re: LPPL and non-discrimination
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:34:21PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> >> Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free
> >> because to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in
> >> their proprietary stuff. Is this what you're getting at?
What about a license like the GPL, without the source distribution requirement?
It essentially would be a license that requires that your modifications
(if you choose to distribute their source) be usable in their proprietary
stuff, since you couldn't tack on a source distribution clause (which is
what prevents GPL code from being used proprietarily). It'd be strange
to consider this DFSG-unfree, as it's mostly[1] more permissive than the GPL.
Of course, a license that limits this to a specific company would be extremely
obnoxious, and certainly feels unfree, but what makes it different from the
above?
[1] Not entirely: not being able to readd the source distribution requirement
is itself a restriction, so it'd be GPL-incompatible.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: