> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I will say it too. It's come up before, and been agreed that as long as > > it does not discriminate to the point that it is non-free for any person, > > group, or field of endeavor, then it is free.
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > That isn't quite the consensus I've seen. For example, a license > which claimed to be MIT/X11 for educators only, and GNU GPL for > non-educators only, would, I argue, be unfree[1]. There needs to be a > single free path through the license available to everybody; at that > point, the license is effectively reduced to that set of conditions > and is free. You are correct, I was being sloppy in my thinking. A dual-licensed package is free IFF at least one of the available licenses is free. In your example, neither of the options are free (MIT only for educators is non-free, and GPL-for-non-educators is non-free). -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
