On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 07:22:59AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, 9 May 2000, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > >... > > One part that I don't like about the new license[1] is the following > > paragraph (1.b.iii): > > > > [you may modify and distribute the source only iff you] > > provide Anonymizer Inc. with a copy of the Source Code of > > such modifications or work by electronic mail, and grant > > Anonymizer Inc. a perpetual, royalty-free license to use and > > distribute the modifications or work in its products. >
This is similar to the Apple notification clause. If Anonymizer Inc. goes out of business or decides to take down their mail server you can no longer satisfy this term and thus can't modify the software at all. Notification clauses have been argued to violate DFSG #1, #3, #5, and #7. I suspect almost all of these arguments are valid. (Note that it would be fine if it read something like "you may modify and distribute the source only iff you provide everyone who recieves a copy of the software and/or your modifications a perpetual, royalty-free license to use and distribute") I don't consider giving Anonymizer, Inc. special rights a desirable condition as it may be construed to violate DFSG #5 by discriminating against people and groups other than Anonymizer, Inc. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
