Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:59:53AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Shipping non-modifiable sofware would clearly be in breach of the DFSG >> > and would be an obvious reduction in the amount of functionality we >> > provide. There's a practical difference. Shipping software with >> > termination clauses would make little to no practical difference since >> > the same thing can happen to the users anyway. The freedom obtained from >> > not having termination clauses is not a useful freedom. The freedom >> > obtained from having modifiable software is a useful freedom. >> >> But a termination-clause license can turn into a no-modifications >> license with no notice. > > At which point it becomes non-free. Or is it your belief that it should > never be possible to turn a free license into a non-free one? The GPL > contains a clause that explicitly allows for that to happen.
No, it doesn't. It terminates only a license I'm already violating. At that point, what do I care? > What field of endeavour does a clause along the lines of "The copyright > holder may terminate this license at any time" discriminate against? How > does this field of endeavour fall under DFSG 6 without it being read in > an extremely broad fashion? Lots of them. Nuclear power plants, for example, or commercial distribution. How, you say, when it doesn't mention them? Because it's got a arbitrary rewriting clause written in. At some point, the licensor can say, "By the way, I terminate the license for all nuclear power plant operators," and from that instant on the operators are in violation. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
