Re: Web application licenses
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> As is often mentioned, if you take DFSG6 that far, you could use it to
> argue that the GPL discriminates against the field of offering
> proprietary modified versions of the software. I don't think DFSG6 can
> sanely be taken that far, and I think it can only really be applied to
> "non-commercial use", "not for use in weapons research or development",
> and similar clauses.
On reflection, I don't think that's really an argument that we shouldn't
interpret DFSG#6 that way; only that, upon doing so, we should apply it
with the same judgement required for the rest of the DFSG.
A license that says "redistribution is only allowed in June" would be non-
free, because it places an unacceptable restriction on redistribution. We
(d-legal) would say that it violates DFSG#1. It says "may not restrict".
Now, on the same token as the DFSG#6 argument, this could be taken too
far. The BSD license restricts distribution: you can't remove copyright
notices. The GPL restricts it in obvious ways. Just about every license
can be argued to restrict distribution, but some restrictions are allowed.
That doesn't mean that we should ignore DFSG#1, and allow any restrictions
anyone can think up; it just means that judgement must be applied.
I think that good judgement should apply to DFSG#6 in the same way. Yes,
it's possible for somebody to argue that the GPL discriminates against
commercial vendors. (It does; I'm sure many of us have been on that
side of the fence at one point or another, in the course of earning a
living.) The clear project consensus is that this is acceptable.
Some people do argue that we, as a project, either can't or shouldn't
need to employ such judgement, and that the DFSG should be adjusted
to eliminate it; as I've said, I disagree.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: