On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create > derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the > DFSG. The usual response to this is that Debian would be restricted > in doing things like porting software, fixing bugs, and so forth. The > SC and DFSG make no mention of those tasks, either.
I think that "people who use the software" constitutes a relevant group of people for "The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons." I think "people who don't use the software" and "people who violate the license terms" do not constitute relevant groups of people. Furthermore, I don't think the problem with this license is a problem with the license at all. It's that some people have a problem with the licensor. Since the GPL could just as easily be abused for harassment purposes (requiring proof of compliance for every copy delivered, or some nonsense like that), I think that this kind of thing should not be thought of as a DFSG issue. Finally, if Adobe were to start with harassing lawsuits, where they claim some bogus violation of this license, they could very well find themselves faced with counter-suits for abuse of the judicial process to discourage participation in matters of public interest. This might seem a stretch to you, but arguments have been made (and not struck down) in Bernstein v. United States that computer software, including especially programs can be speech protected by the first amendment. This protection is an explicit part of California law, and the license explicitly states that California law is relevant to all disputes involving the license. I don't think Adobe would want to expose themselves to that kind of risk, so I think we can take this license at face value. -- Raul
