Re: Contracts and licenses
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Contracts and licenses
- From: email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:36:20 -0400
- Message-id: <E1BkWwb-0000VVfirstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <bVy7OD.A.be._xX4AB@murphy> <40E1826C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20040629183907.GB92129@stack.nl> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <E1BfQss-0000UJemail@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com> wrote:
> This should be considered as a restriction on the grant of rights to
> distribute the program. If you had rights to distribute the program
> binary-only for other reasons separate from the license (say, a different
> license), and this license took those rights away, this would *not* be a
> free requirement.
Right, but that is circular reasoning. Why is this a bad thing, *IF IT
IS A MINOR REQUIREMENT*?
> For instance, consider a GPL-licensed work where the copyright holder offers
> licenses to use the program without source for a fee. I should certainly
> be able to use the proprietary license from the copyright holder for one
> project and the GPL for another. If the GPL contained such a requirement
> and it wasn't a restriction on the grant of rights, but rather an *actual*
> consideration, this would be impossible. Get the picture?
I had to read this four times, and I still don't understand your
example. I think you are talking about cases where a restriction in the
license interferes with some other license? In that case, I point you
back to the GPL clause which allows you to distribute binary and make
the source code available. IANAL, but even if I have a separate license
that says I can distribute the binary without posting source, I still
can't undo the fact that in the past I have already distributed the
binary under the GPL option. However, I can certainly use the
newly-obtained license for disributions in the future.
Generalizing, if the restriction does not interfere with the normal
free-software rights, I do not see the problem.
Also, note that the new license is surely non-free. I don't think we
should overly concern ourselves with how free licenses mix with non-free
ones, because a non-free license can go so far as saying stuff like "You
will not redistribute a GPL program. Ever.". We can't defend against
By the way, I think a big part of my frustration with these discussions
is the use of the word "free". When I say "free", please take it as
"the requirement Debian makes of software", or often, "the requirement
Debian *should* make of software".