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

Re: why is graphviz package non-free?

On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > A license that says "{GPL-ish source terms}, but all modifications must
> > be released to the whole world under a BSD-style license" isn't even special-
> > casing the original author, though.
> DFSG3:
> > 3. Derived Works
> > 
> > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
> > allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
> > the original software.
> If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the
> original, then it isn't DFSG-Free.

The discussion at hand is whether this interpretation is a useful one.
(There's no real indication that this interpretation was intended in this
way.)  Saying "we should require this because this interpretation is
possible" isn't very convincing.

Indeed, I agree that it's extremely distasteful for a license to do this;
I'd never contribute to such a work.  I can't come up with any strong
argument of why it's non-free, though ("distasteful" really isn't enough),
and nobody else is doing so, either--the only argument I've seen is that
it's a "payment" to the upstream author, but that's not true in the above

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: