Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:59:53AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> > 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.
>
> At which point it becomes non-free. Or is it your belief that it should
> never be possible to turn a free license into a non-free one? The GPL
> contains a clause that explicitly allows for that to happen.
No, it doesn't. It terminates only a license I'm already violating.
At that point, what do I care?
> What field of endeavour does a clause along the lines of "The copyright
> holder may terminate this license at any time" discriminate against? How
> does this field of endeavour fall under DFSG 6 without it being read in
> an extremely broad fashion?
Lots of them. Nuclear power plants, for example, or commercial
distribution. How, you say, when it doesn't mention them? Because
it's got a arbitrary rewriting clause written in. At some point, the
licensor can say, "By the way, I terminate the license for all nuclear
power plant operators," and from that instant on the operators are in
violation.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: