Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org> writes:

> I agree that this is bad, but does DFSG 3 forbid this? Perhaps it
> does, but only if you assume some kind of implicit substitution where
> the modifier replaces the author in the "same terms". I don't think
> that's a particularly natural way to read it. So, I agree that
> "asymmetry" is bad, but I find it a bit of a stretch to claim that
> DFSG 3 says that.

I think that substitution is natural, in the closest-to-free reading I
can give it:  One way, there's a special "Send a copy to Bob Smith"
clause, which I think is as clearly non free as "Send a postcard to
Bob Smith" or "Send a dollar to Charity X".  The closer-to-free reading
just involves sending a copy to the person you got your copy from, but
this isn't that.

> If you want to try and formulate the "asymmetry" criterion you might
> want to consider the case of a licence L that forced everyone who
> distributes a modified version to make their modifications available
> under a BSD licence to teachers, or some other class that may or may
> not include the original author. What would be the "same terms" then?

Yes, that's either the Charity X case from above, if it requires
sending copies to teachers, or... hrm.  I thin it's as non-free as any
other Charityware.  That's laudable from a social perspective, but
it's not Free.

> (You could claim it's discrimination against the group of
> non-teachers, but DFSG 5 is usually understood just to mean that
> everyone must have the rights, not that it is forbidden to grant
> additional rights to certain groups.)
>
> Hm ...
>
> DFSG 12. The licence must not force modifiers to grant rights over
> their code that previous contributors have not granted to the
> modifier?

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu