[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue

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

> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>>The patent situation is thrust upon us; we can't avoid it.  That doesn't
>>imply that we should allow clauses which create more such situations,
>>allowing termination at any time according to the author's mood and whim.
> Why not? Again, what practical difference does it make to our users?

Right now, not much -- but it makes it harder for us to mistake
non-free licenses for free ones.  The patent situation sucks, but to
take it as precedent would lead to there being no free software.

>>The "Tentacles of Evil" test enunciates the need for this better (FAQ 9 A c):
>>"Imagine that the author is hired by a large evil corporation and, now
>>in their thrall, attempts to do the worst to the users of the program:
>>to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using the program, to
>>expose them to legal liability, to make the program non-free, to
>>discover their secrets, etc. The same can happen to a corporation bought
>>out by a larger corporation bent on destroying free software in order to
>>maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The license cannot
>>allow even the author to take away the required freedoms!"
> Yes. Why does the test say this? Which aspect of the DFSG is represented
> by this test?

The DFSG give some guidelines for how to identify Free Software.  They
are not an exhaustive definition.

Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: