Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]
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.)
> Pine if you want an example of where we got screwed by it.
That was the "modify or distribute means either one, but not both",
right? I think that's a case of "interpreting" a license, as I
mentioned--in this case, in a way that's obviously bogus in order
to retroactively "revoke" the freeing of some code.
It still doesn't seem to me like the "programs are free or non-free, not
licenses" bit applies most of the time. Besides, most of the time we
evaluate licenses, we do so without any idea of the original author's
intent or beliefs (except as embodied in their license), so it seems to
not matter if we evaluate those licenses in the context of a particular
program or not. (Of course, if we do know that a licensor has a particular
history--such as UW--it's something to keep in mind.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: