Re: DRAFT d-l summary of the OSL v2.0
Henning Makholm <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> There is no DFSG #0 that requires the right to *run* the program,
> because the prevailing legal opinion is that copyright cannot restrict
> use in the first place. If the license demands that one accepts a
> restriction on use as a condition on getting the other rights the DFSG
> requires, is an attached string. As such, it renders all of the other
> rights void for the purposes of applying the DFSG to it.
I realize now that I misunderstood your argument in my last message.
Your claim is that since the use restriction attaches to all the other
freedoms the license grants, it is also a restriction on all those
freedoms....? In which case DFSG #6 is completely redundant.
Hrm. I'm still uncomfortable -- if it were intended that the DFSG be
interpreted that way, why is #6 there at all?
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03