Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:05:27AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>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.
>>
>>If I interpret what you said literally, then *nobody* has the right to
>>take the code proprietary, because it must stay copyleftBSD-licensed.
>
> No, that's not it.
>
> A work (say, GlennEmacs) is placed under a license that says "include source
> with all distribution {other GPL-ish don't-take-my-stuff-proprietary
> requirements}. Any modifications must be placed under the BSD license."
Ah, I see; yes, that's non-free.
- Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature