Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 10:05:29AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> 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. > > That merely reduces to "some licenses exist which are free and some > exist which are not". This is trivially satisfied by the existence of > one work under the MIT license (which is free), and one under the MS > EULA (which is not) - and yes, we've just come to the conclusion that > one is acceptable and the other not.
The implication of the post I replied to was that any license that allows the removal of some set of the rights it grants should be non-free. The GPL is an obvious counter-example, since it allows you to lose all rights associated with it. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
