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

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:45:45AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:18:07AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I know that any license can be "interpreted" in a non-free way (even
> > > the MIT license), but that's usually the rare exception.  Other than
> > > licenses with "options" (which essentially makes them multiple licenses),
> > > and other than questionable "interpretations", when has this actually
> > > happened?
> > 
> > The Artistic license would be the classical case.
> I don't think the Artistic license is "applied" in a free- or non-free
> way--I doubt there'd be any question that all applications of it would
> be considered non-free if DFSG#10 didn't confuse things.  (There's no
> way to apply 3c "must rename executables"+"must document" in a free way,
> and that's the closest to a free alternative in #3.  The "commercial
> use must be embedded only" bit is a pretty clear DFSG#6 violation, too;
> the application doesn't change anything.)

3a is the one normally used.

The Artistic license is an example of a license which is not free by
default, but which can be free in the presence of a small bushel of
clarifications (including prying the stupid out of 3a, iirc) from the
copyright holder. The most notable thing under such a free application
of the Artistic license is perl, even though we have the GPL available
as well these days. I'm not aware of any other significant uses of it.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: