Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very >> clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the >> software. They aren't on a plane with the original author. This is a >> root problem similar to that of the FSF's shenanigans with GFDL and >> GPL'd text, and the reason I object to their use of the GFDL: when >> only a copyright holder can do some things, that's non-Free. > > How does providing extra freedoms to certain recipients decrease the > freeness of a piece of software? Software under the GPL is free.
It doesn't. Requiring that others release more freedom in a mutual work than you will release is non-free. > Software under the BSD license is free. Software that is sometimes under > one and sometimes under another ought to still be free. It is. But software under a "you get GPL-like rights to my parts of this thing we're building together, and I get BSD-like rights to your parts" license is not free. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
