On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 07:08:11 +0100 Lewis Jardine wrote:
> 1a: Does applying a 'choice of language' clause to everyone make a
> license non-free (or is it acceptable the same way a 'choice of law'
> clause is)?
Perhaps it does not make a license non-free.
> 1b: Is a 'choice of language' clause a NOOP? (is the choice of
> language clause implicit in the fact that the contract is only
> available in one language?)
Well, the license is only available in one language, but the clause in
the APSL v2.0 talks about the License *and all related documents*.
I considered strange that this clause only applies to Quebec people.
If this choice of language is implicit, I would think there's no
need to include an explicit clause. Or, on the other end, it would be
fine to include an explicit clause that applies to everybody.
I mean: do I have, as an Italian-speaking italian person, some right
(granted to me by the APSL v2.0) that French-speaking Quebec people
don't have?
Which are these `related documents'? Could I request that they be
drafted in Italian? Do Quebec people surrender this right by accepting
the License?
> 2: Does applying a NOOP to a subset of people discriminate against
> them?
No, it doesn't discriminate, it's just a bit stupid.
But it has to be a real NOOP: a NOOP under any reasonable jurisdiction
one can think of.
> 3: Does applying a Free term to a subset of people discriminate
> against them?
I'm undecided about this.
My first feeling is that it would still be a discrimination.
Why do some people get more rights just by belonging to a group, or by
living in a particular place?
Imagine the following:
"You can redistribute this work and/or modify it under the terms of the
GNU General Public License, version 2, as published by the Free Software
Foundation.
As en exception, if you are a king, you can redistribute and/or modify
it under the terms of the X11 license."
This seems unfair.
But, OTOH, the copyright holder could distribute the work under the GPL
to one person and then distribute the same work under the X11 license to
a different person (and even distribute the same work under a
proprietary license to a third person).
This is perfectly fine (the copyright holder has the right to relicense
as she likes) and it wouldn't undermine the freeness of the
free-licensed versions.
So, I don't know...
What do you think?
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program
Francesco | Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom!
Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO,
| 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0
Attachment:
pgpGTKHNRaa5J.pgp
Description: PGP signature