Francesco Poli dijo [Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:50:53PM +0200]: > I personally think it is indeed relevant. > > Let me try to explain. > The term "further restrictions" is meant "with respect to the > GPL terms", not "with respect to GPL terms + any terms added by the > copyright holder". > Hence releasing software under "GPL + further restrictions" creates a > self-contradictory license, where anyone willing to redistribute has to > comply with the following conditions: > > • redistribute under the GPL terms > • do not impose any further restriction (with respect to the GPL) > • do not drop the restrictions which are already present (copyright > laws do not allow distributors to drop restrictions) > > One cannot comply with all these conditions at the same time. > The "GPL + further restrictions" license is therefore > self-contradictory.
Right. But a content creator (in this case, a software author) is free to choose whatever terms they see fit for their work. In this case, if what they come up with that best describes their intent is "something similar to the GPL, but adding a restriction to it to prevent appropriation in commercial settings", they are entitled to. And yes, expressing it as "GPL + restrictions" is unfortunate; perhaps describing it as a "restricted GPL" is clearer. It legal code were interpretable as software, the "work" object would be restricted before being "blessed" (yes, I'm marked with Perl) as GPL, hence the GPL would not affect its fundamental nature. Anyway, further discussing the matter won't clarify it much. The clear result, /methinks, is that we all agree this is DFSG-unfree. Whether it is distributable in non-free... Is subject to discussion. _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
