Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:47:42PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > If not, for example, this would seem to imply that software under the GPL > > > with a special exception releasing John Smith from the requirement to > > > release > > > source would fail. > > > > > > I think that's clearly silly, because the same effect can be achieved by > > > giving that individual a separate license. Additional licenses being > > > granted > > > only to certain people, independently from the one Debian sees, never make > > > software less free. So, it would seem silly to reject a single license > > > that combines the effect of this licensing arrangement into one license, > > > even if using two licenses would be cleaner. > > > > The effect is different. For a copyleft, incorporating "group X gets extra > > rights" into the licence under which the work is distributed means that any > > changes I make have to also be under that discriminatory licence -- that is, > > the licence that Debian uses is discriminatory. > > It's not different. > > That example wasn't meant to say "... and you must also release John > Smith from that requirement in all modifications". (It was meant to > be a trivial example of granting extra permissions.) I'll look at > that, too, of course: > > The dual-licensing equivalent of that would be one license that says > "GPL, but everyone is released from the requirement to release > source, and you must release everyone from this in your > modifications"; and another that says "GPL, but John Smith is > released from the requirement to release source, and you must > release him from this requirement in your modifications". > > The former is clearly free,
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. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
