Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue

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

Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:05:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 2) In the case of a BSD-style license with a QPL-style forced
>> distribution upstream clause, there would be no need for a QPL-style
>> permissions grant. Upstream could subsume it into their closed product
>> anyway.
>
>But I could do the same to their work under a BSD licence.  I can't do that
>with a QPL-licenced work.  It's all about equality.  It's not necessarily a
>*good* outcome, but it's a *better* outcome.

I don't think a license that allows people to produce closed products is
a good license. I think a license that allows precisely one person to
produce a closed product is better than one that allows many people to
do so. I still don't think it's good, but I certainly don't think it's
non-free. Why is equality so much of an issue?

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