Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> >
> >> * Licenses like the QPL, which compel me to give somebody more rights
> >> to my work than I had to his, are not Free. They are not compatible
> >> with DFSG 3.
> >
> > This is where you lose me. How is that incompatible with DFSG 3? If
> > the license says that Entity X gets extra rights (perhaps being the
> > author of the original software), what prevents Author Y from
> > releasing modifications under the same license terms ("Entity X gets
> > extra rights to modifications")?
>
> Nothing. And I'm happy to grant permissive licenses to INRIA/Cristal,
> Best Practical, or others who not only distribute their software, but
> manage free software projects which incorporate change from the
> community.
>
> But the requirement that I *must* license under those terms is a
> non-Free requirement.
I do not like that kind of asymmetric license, but I do not like
patch-only or must-rename licenses, and Debian accepts those as Free.
I have not yet seen clear reasoning that shows how the DFSG would
reject an asymmetric license as non-free. I asked above how an
asymmetric license violates DFSG 3, and I see no answer to that
question in your email.
Michael Poole
