* Eric Schultz: > Description: > The idea for Dual Licensing for Justice comes from, you guessed it, dual > licensing and my own experience with the [license for the Houdini Project]( > https://github.com/houdiniproject/houdini/blob/master/LICENSE) which I help > lead. It's additionally inspired by the GPLvX-or-later license notice. In > this tactic, a strong copy-left license could apply to the software. The > community would draft a special exception to that license which grants all > users except a set of listed entities the right to use the software under a > more permissive license. As an example, consider the following, utterly > non-legally valid special exception: > --- > As a special exception to the normal AGPLv3 license, all users except > Amazon and their employees may choose, to redistribute and/or modify this > software under the LGPLv3 license. > --- > This special exception makes clear who the community considers a bad actor > and initially imposes greater obligations on them than anyone else. That > said, I strongly believe it is FSD compatible and also believe it is OSD > compatible. All parties receive a set of rights and obligations that comply > with both definitions.
Does the GPL, version 3, go in that direction? It does not mention Microsoft, Novell, or SUSE by name, but if I recall correctly, a lot of the patent-related language was inspired by a business transaction between those companies the GPL authors deemed unethical. Similar for the use of of formely free software by Tivo. Although I think that the GPL is actually pro-Tivoization, considering the “running the covered works […] on your behalf” exception: it seems to cover the kind of edge computing that Tivo does (or did at the time). _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
