Re: Is the OSL DFSG free?
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 03:32:42PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> >> This sort of rationale is usually bogus.
> >>
> >> In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is "non-free" because it
> >> discriminates against people trying to sell the software.
> >
> > Thats one of the reason why we put software that is "for non-commercial
> > use only" into non-free. Your point was?
>
> You appear confused: "for non-commercial use" does not restrict the
> distribution, but rather the use of the software. For example, if I
> had a copy of Emacs with a license "for non-commercial use only," I
> could not use it to write programs for pay.
I'm not sure the use vs. distribution distinction is relevant (unless
making an argument that they can't make the restriction at all due to
scope of copyright law, which is rarely done).
More generally, that rationale is bogus because it applies to almost *all*
restrictions in any license. The GPL discriminates against proprietary
software authors.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: