On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > This is where I disagree. Requiring modifiers to license changes as > free for everyone to make proprietary is not free. I don't know of > any other licenses in main that have that requirement.
So you're saying, I think, that any viral (GPL-ish "must be available under these terms"/"may not add restrictions") license that does not require source distribution (and therefore prohibits requiring it) is non-free. I'm not sure I agree, though this is tangental to the DFSG#5 argument here. Do you also disagree with my general argument that this type of requirement doesn't fail DFSG#5, or do you not have an opinion on that? I ask because disagreeing with this particular example doesn't imply disagreement with the DFSG#5 counterargument, so I just want to be clear. -- Glenn Maynard
