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

Re: Swiss Ephemeris Public License

Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>:

> > >      b. If modifications to the SE are released under this
> > >      license, a non-exclusive right is granted to the holder of the
> > >      copyright of the unmodified SE to distribute your
> > >      modification in future versions of the SE provided such
> > >      versions remain available under these terms in addition to any
> > >      other license.
> > 
> > I recall that we recently discussed whether such clauses are
> > sufficiently discriminating to fail the implicit "with no
> > consideration to the author" test of the DFSG. It eludes me what we
> > concluded, however.
> I personally consider that non-DFSG-free, under the theory that in
> general, "your modifications" have pecuniary value, and you are
> compelled to license your valuable modifications to the copyright holder
> under terms other than those under which you are licensing them to the
> community.

What stops you from licensing your valuable modifications under a
BSD-like licence so that everyone has them under the same terms?

> Therefore, I see no fundamental difference between this clause and one
> which insists that all modifiers pay a license fee to the copyright
> holder.  Both cash and copyrightable modifications have pecuniary value.
> Consequently, in my view, this clause fails the "freely modifiable"
> requirement of the FSF's definition of "Free Software".

Would you feel the same way about a licence that said that all
modifications must be public-domain or BSD-licensed?

What about a copyleft licence that grants the DFSG-freedoms but gives
additional permissions to Jehova's Witnesses (who happen to come to
mind as they turned up at my door as I was typing this)?


Reply to: