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

Re: Is the OSL DFSG free?

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 11:17:31AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > DFSG#5 and #6 are rarely used. Most of the time, you really want to be
> > looking at #1, including for "non-commercial use only" licenses.
>  Well, I don't know which part of the MIT/X11 license you are aiming it,
> but if you say it discriminates people trying to sell the software it
> would violate #1 then, right?
>     The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling
>     or giving away the software ...

It doesn't make this restriction; the MIT/X11 license is the generic
"Do anything you want with this" license. However, this clearly makes
it difficult if not impossible for somebody to sell the software - the
recipient should have little difficulty finding somebody to supply it
for free.

The point here is that this should _not_ qualify as "discrimination"
under DFSG#5.

For the record, I hate the wording of DFSG#5 and #6. A stable society
requires discrimination of some form. Capitalism is founded upon
discrimination against the poor; Debian upon discrimination against
the stupid.

> > Trying to apply #5 outside the scope of things like "This program may
> > only be used by white american males" will usually lead to nonsensical
> > results - like declaring the MIT/X11 license non-free.
>  You might be right, but I see no reason for to believe that #5 has a
> specific scope only.  The thing is, the OSL says "if you sue us, you are
> not allowed to use our software *or* _ANY OTHER_ software licensed under
> the OSL". This fails with #9 (no impact on other software) at least,
>  I can honestly understand the reasoning behind this, to be able to
> address software patents in a nifty way, but still it violates the DFSG,
> doesn't it?

It quite possibly does violate the DFSG; I still haven't read it. It
just doesn't violate #5 on this point.

[Also, we *can* proclaim things non-free even if they strictly comply
with every point in the DFSG, should there be a good reason. It's
always possible that somebody will come up with a swindle nobody
thought of while writing the DFSG in the first place.]

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: pgpSBEtyealCj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: