Re: why is graphviz package non-free?

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Does anyone actually have any compelling reason for believing that the
> literal interpretation is what was meant?

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.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu