On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 05:39:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: >> A clause that enables the license to a piece of IP in a piece of Free >> Software to be revokable is a useage restriction, and as such, not >> DSFG Free.[1] [It fails DFSG #5 and #6.] > > Assuming you mean "revokable under some condition" (not just > "revokable at whim", which is obviously non-free), wouldn't this > include GPL #4? > > I'm not suggesting that the GPL is non-free, or that the proposed > clause in question is free; just that this statement seems overly > broad. You're correct; it is badly worded (and upon reflection doesn't mean exactly what I intented it to.) To clarify: GPL #4 in itself isn't a useage restriction because the GPL doesn't concern itself with useage at all, only copying, modifying, and distributing. What I was attempting to verbalize (rather badly) is that software licenses should never restrict useage. Furthermore, they should only restrict modification, copying, and distribution when it serves a clear and present goal of improving the freedom of software itself. Don Armstrong -- Any excuse will serve a tyrant. -- Aesop http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature