On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 10:38:51AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Andrew Suffield writes: > > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 09:41:05AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > > > The former is objectionable -- and I think not free -- because the > > > author's alleged patent infringement need not be related to the > > > software. I am not sure why some people think the latter is > > > objectionable, since it is similar in spirit and effect to the GPL's > > > termination case > > > > I am not sure why some people think the latter is acceptable, since it > > is similar in spirit and effect to the MS EULA (which says that you > > can't do anything the copyright holder doesn't like). > > This is not true, and it does not approximate anything that is true. False. Go and read the MS EULA. > > Free software licenses give things to the licensee. Not the copyright > > holder. > > Under this line of argument, the GPL is non-free because it gives the > copyright holder a promise that the licensee will redistribute the > work (in original or modified form) in source code to anyone the > licensee gives a copy to. Also wrong, despite attempts at word games. The GPL gives all licensees access to the source, and nothing to the copyright holder (unless they coincidentally happen to be a licensee of a modified version). This is a necessary condition for it to be free; if it actually gave access to the source to the copyright holder then it would not be free. An example of a non-free license along these lines is the old NPL. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature