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

Re: Open Software License v2.1



On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 01:01:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> > This idea is a variation on "You may not use this software for
> > military applications" and goes against DFSG#5/#6. They're both
> > intrinsically non-free, no matter how laudable you may consider them
> > to be.
> 
> Why is discrimination against people who want to sue you significantly
> different to discrimination against people who want to distribute
> binaries without source? Neither prevents or restricts use, modification
> or distribution of modified works.

Distribution of binaries without source is intrinsically bad for free
software. Distributing source with binaries is not appreciably
difficult or limiting; this requirement is trivially accomplished
without any real cost.

Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software. Prohibiting
lawsuits is significantly limiting and imposes real, significant
costs.

> > You cannot use a license to enforce your political position.
> 
> Why is copyleft other than the use of copyright to enforce a political
> position (ie, that the source should always be available to people with
> binaries)?

It's the use of copyright to enforce a technical goal. It is vaguely
similar to the political position of the FSF but does not actually
enforce it.

It is unarguably superior that source should always be available for a
free software project. You cannot say the same for prohibiting
lawsuits.


In short, all the usual things that distinguish valid applications of
DFSG#5/#6 from invalid ones (even if they are fiendishly difficult to
understand).

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: