Re: why is graphviz package non-free?
Matthew Garrett <email@example.com> writes:
> Does anyone actually have any compelling reason for believing that the
> literal interpretation is what was meant?
I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all
modifications and derived works had to be distributed under BSD-like
licenses. It's sort of a copywrong, since the original author can
collect all the modifications and sell proprietary licenses to them.
Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very
clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the
software. They aren't on a plane with the original author. This is a
root problem similar to that of the FSF's shenanigans with GFDL and
GPL'd text, and the reason I object to their use of the GFDL: when
only a copyright holder can do some things, that's non-Free.
Brian Sniffen firstname.lastname@example.org