On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 10:44:57PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > particularly if the entire project was government financed. I could > only see this as a problem with something that was GPLed or otherwise > copylefted (ex: GPLed software that is financed by the govt could be > modified by the govt and combined with non-GPL-compatible software);
I don't see that as a concern. That's always the right of the copyright owner; the FSF could release a proprietary backend to GCC if they chose to. > (I guess the question is: if I license software under a BSD-like > license, but say in the license that people who use it to build > nuclear power plants, have bad breath, or hang out with Osama bin > Laden have to abide by the terms of the GPL with regards to the > software, would that be non-free, even though both groups are covered > by DFSG-free licenses?) We can distribute it under a free license, so I guess it would be free. I'd only accept that if there was one license everyone could use (i.e. the GPL in this case); if one group could use it under the QPL and the other under the GPL, it's not free IMO. (I once put this up on opensource-discuss (I think), with Tom Christenson and Theo de Raadt having to follow the GPL, and that was Bruce Peren's opinion at the time.) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less." - "Disciple", Stuart Davis