[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Such a clause excludes certain (or more likely undefinded) person > subgroups from the rights all other user get for this software. Not per > default, but after a certain action of the user, but the software > restricts its use to certain person subgroups. That seems to me very > arbitrary.
The GPL does much the same. If someone distributes GPLed software without complying with section 3 (which gives you various ways in which you have to make source code available to the recipient), then they lose the right to use that GPLed software. We have various licenses that terminate if you do something "wrong" - we've just come to the conclusion that it's acceptable that people not be allowed to do that thing. In the past, we've accepted various compromises on freedom because they help free software. The GPL's forced provision of source code is one of these. If we were writing the DFSG for the first time now, where would we draw the line with patent-related clauses? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
