[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: why is graphviz package non-free?

Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:05:27AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>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.
>>If I interpret what you said literally, then *nobody* has the right to
>>take the code proprietary, because it must stay copyleftBSD-licensed.
> No, that's not it.
> A work (say, GlennEmacs) is placed under a license that says "include source
> with all distribution {other GPL-ish don't-take-my-stuff-proprietary
> requirements}.  Any modifications must be placed under the BSD license."

Ah, I see; yes, that's non-free.

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: