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

Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:01:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
> > I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create
> > derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the
> > DFSG.  The usual response to this is that Debian would be restricted
> > in doing things like porting software, fixing bugs, and so forth.  The
> > SC and DFSG make no mention of those tasks, either.
> I think that "people who use the software" constitutes a relevant group
> of people for "The license must not discriminate against any person or
> group of persons."

On that line of reasoning, "people who don't live in California" are,
too.  But we both know how weak arguing on DFSG#5 tends to be.

I think the traditional argument is that restrictions on *use* of the
software indicate an EULA, since simple copyright can not, in theory,
restrict the use of software obtained legally.  This implies that any
license that restricts use requires a click-through license.  Their
implementation requires strict restrictions on distribution, to ensure
that all recipients agree to it, and that falls widely afoul of DFSG#1.

> I think "people who don't use the software" and "people who violate
> the license terms" do not constitute relevant groups of people.

I think "people the licensor alleges violate the license terms" are, however.

> Furthermore, I don't think the problem with this license is a problem
> with the license at all.  It's that some people have a problem with
> the licensor.

I don't think anybody is claiming that choice of venue is only non-free
for Adobe.

> I don't think Adobe would want to expose themselves to that kind
> of risk, so I think we can take this license at face value.

Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case.  It's a similar problem with,
for example, honest but incorrect claims.  I don't see why the licensor
should get to override the venue in *any* case where he's the one
instigating the lawsuit.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: