Re: LPPL and non-discrimination
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> The issue is what it costs you, not who benefits. The GPL requires
> the exact same thing -- that you make any intellectual contribution
> of your own available to others -- the only difference is that the
> GPL requires you give it to various users, and the ABC-DFL requires
> you give slightly more rights to ABC. By contrast, requiring you to
> email people, or pay a fee, is an entirely different cost, and they
> happen to be ones we find unacceptably awkward as far as maintaining
> packages go.
Fair 'nuf. I'll simply say, then, that it seems to me very hard to
draw a line between whether or not a license term costs the modifier
too much to be free (i.e., how much is too much). On the other hand,
the GPL only requires that the modifier give rights to the distributee
(as opposed to unrelated third parties) -- which, IMHO, makes it
completely different. (Though it doesn't precisely fail the desert
island test, as there's presumably no positive requirement to make
sources available to ABC.)
But I'm not really interested in arguing the situation -- I honestly
thought that such a license would be uncontroversially non-free. I
was evidently wrong, and as IANADD, I don't really have any say in the
matter anyway.
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: