Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I agree that this is bad, but does DFSG 3 forbid this? Perhaps it > does, but only if you assume some kind of implicit substitution where > the modifier replaces the author in the "same terms". I don't think > that's a particularly natural way to read it. So, I agree that > "asymmetry" is bad, but I find it a bit of a stretch to claim that > DFSG 3 says that.
I think that substitution is natural, in the closest-to-free reading I can give it: One way, there's a special "Send a copy to Bob Smith" clause, which I think is as clearly non free as "Send a postcard to Bob Smith" or "Send a dollar to Charity X". The closer-to-free reading just involves sending a copy to the person you got your copy from, but this isn't that. > If you want to try and formulate the "asymmetry" criterion you might > want to consider the case of a licence L that forced everyone who > distributes a modified version to make their modifications available > under a BSD licence to teachers, or some other class that may or may > not include the original author. What would be the "same terms" then? Yes, that's either the Charity X case from above, if it requires sending copies to teachers, or... hrm. I thin it's as non-free as any other Charityware. That's laudable from a social perspective, but it's not Free. > (You could claim it's discrimination against the group of > non-teachers, but DFSG 5 is usually understood just to mean that > everyone must have the rights, not that it is forbidden to grant > additional rights to certain groups.) > > Hm ... > > DFSG 12. The licence must not force modifiers to grant rights over > their code that previous contributors have not granted to the > modifier? -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
