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

Re: why is graphviz package non-free?

Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> Licenses that require people to provide more freedoms than the DFSG
>> requires should never be non-free, even if those freedoms are only
>> provided to certain people. Free software isn't about fairness or moral
>> justification. It's about being able to modify software and pass those
>> modifications on to someone else.
> How about a license which says "You may copy, modify, or distribute
> this program, but only if you publish all your other works under the
> terms of this very license."  Is that free?  It looks like your
> definition includes it, but I find it abhorrent.

We believe that the freedom to choose the license of unrelated software
is important, therefore a license that forbids that would be non-free. 

>> Why not? Which freedoms does it impact upon?
> The freedom to make and distribute modifications without paying the
> author.  Becoming part of a commons is not a payment.

By that definition, all licenses that imposes any restrictions on the
license of your modifications requires a payment.

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

Reply to: