Re: why is graphviz package non-free?
Brian Thomas Sniffen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <email@example.com> 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 | firstname.lastname@example.org