Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
>>> Sigh. Yes. But the difference between the two makes no practical
>>> difference whatsoever to our users at present, so what's the point?
>>
>>It makes a huge difference.  They can get access to much more software
>>if we ship stuff with a termination clause.  Of course, they can also
>>get access to much more software if we ship non-modifiable software,
>>and that makes no practical difference to most of our users at
>>present, either.
>
> Shipping non-modifiable sofware would clearly be in breach of the DFSG
> and would be an obvious reduction in the amount of functionality we
> provide. There's a practical difference. Shipping software with
> termination clauses would make little to no practical difference since
> the same thing can happen to the users anyway. The freedom obtained from
> not having termination clauses is not a useful freedom. The freedom
> obtained from having modifiable software is a useful freedom.

But a termination-clause license can turn into a no-modifications
license with no notice.

>>The point, in short, is that termination-clause licenses aren't free.
>
> Gah. Yes. Thank you.

So we're agreed now?

>>In the very specific terms of the DFSG, they discriminate against
>>whatever endeavor allows termination, or in the case of
>>arbitrary-termination clauses against whomever the licensor doesn't
>>like.  Licenses which terminate for non-compliance are different,
>>since they can't move you from a compliant to a non-compliant state,
>>but only from a non-compliant state to a non-compliant state.
>
> Just like the GPL discriminates against the endeavor of shipping
> non-free derivations. Yes, clauses that say "If you engage in activity
> X, your license may be terminated" when activity X is a perfectly
> reasonable activity are probably non-free. "The licensor reserves the
> right to terminate this license" is less obvious, and I'm not convinced
> that they're against the DFSG.

Your reference to the GPL is a ridiculously broad reading of
discrimination against an endeavor.  Can you construct this argument
on a serious basis, instead of this?

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu