Re: why is graphviz package non-free?
Scripsit Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario:
>> 1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL.
>> 2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his Contributions
>> on a website under the current CPL.
>> 3. IBM notices B's modified program and decides that they would like
>> to include it in their proprietary program suite for frobitzing
>> foobars, with private modifications that they don't release
>> source for. So,
>> 4. IBM releases new version of CPL which gives IBM carte blanche to
>> do anything at all with covered code.
>> 5. C (a strawman for IBM) picks up B's modified program, makes some
>> inconsequential little changes and releases it under the new
>> amended CPL - as allowed by the original CPL under which B
>> distributed his changes.
>> 6. IBM picks up C's distribution and starts abusing B's contribution
> The same thing is possible with the GPL, with it's "any later version"
No - the GPL would allow B to distribute his hacked code under "GPL,
version 2 only" if he wants to prevent this.
> For that matter, the same thing is possible with the BSD license,
> because it makes no attempt to provide copyleft protection.
No - the BSD license would allow B to distribute his hacked code under
"GPL, version 2 only" if he wants to prevent this.
The CPL does *not* allow B to distrubte his hacked code under "CPL,
version 1 only". In fact, "CPL, version 1 only" is not even a
internally consistent license specification, because CPL
*intrinsically* allows any downstream recipient to switch everything
to any later version published by IBM.
Henning Makholm "Jeg køber intet af Sulla, og selv om uordenen griber
planmæssigt om sig, så er vi endnu ikke nået dertil hvor
ordentlige mennesker kan tillade sig at stjæle slaver fra
hinanden. Så er det ligegyldigt, hvor stærke, politiske modstandere vi er."