Re: a Free Platform License?
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:25 AM, "Hugo Roy" <hugo@fsfe.org> wrote:
> I am talking of the freedom to distribute copies of the program.
> If you restrict that freedom to specific people that is clearly
> not free software, and that is totally consistent with RMS' l,
> definition as well.
The GPL provides conditions for distribution, when
those conditions are not met -- you can't distribute
a modified copy. Hence, the GPL prevents distribution.
> "tightly integrating" looks like it's a derivative
> work. I don't think this is possible. Both would have
> to be under GPL terms. (That's not a discrimination!)
Zeek does have the right to construct his derived
work that combines the GPL and non-free work.
> He can't put his work under the GPL… and this is true
> to anybody. He cannot publish his modifications because
> he cannot put John's non-free under the GPL.
Since Zeek can't distribute John's work under the GPL or
a compatible license, he doesn't meet the distribution
criteria to be a distributable modification of Lisa's work.
> The GPL isn't preventing distribution. If the GPL was
> preventing distribution, it would mean in the first
> place that Zeek has a legal right to distribute a work
> of authorship.
Ok. So this is the crux of why GPL doesn't discriminate;
since the GPL didn't provide the right of distribution to
Zeek, there isn't any right lost, and hence no discrimination.
> This right "comes" from copyright (in the US), but in
> this precise example it would be a either:
> * a violation of copyright (John's copyright) if you
> pretend it's under GPL (or GPL-compatible license)
> * a violation of the GNU GPL (Lisa's copyright) if
> you distribute with the non-free library
>
> There are no discrimination by the GPL: nobody is
> allowed to get this program, because Zeek has no right
> under John's license to publish any derivative work.
Oh, let's suppose John's license provides the rights to
make derivative works then, provided that his library's
license (say with an advertising clause) is incorporated.
> That's where the non-free comes from; not the GPL.
Well, I think this is a terminology / perspective issue.
...
So, according to this logic, the Free Platform License
described (as derived from GPLv3, without Affero) would
also not discriminate against platform users. Since
those who would wish to distribute FPL licensed software
for use specifically with a non-free platform have no
previous rights to do so. Hence, there is no
discrimination with this approach.
Correct?
Clark
Reply to: