Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

[Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

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.

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

Gah. Yes. Thank you.

>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.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org