On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 05:08:22PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > IMO the last sentence of the above-quoted clause may very well be > > DFSG-unfree...in which case the code licensed under it should be yanked. > > I don't think it is. DFSG does not require that the software can be > redistributed under different releases. Thus anybody can shield > himself form the effect of this clause simply by not redistributing > the software under a different release. If the set of "any such terms > Recipient offers" is empty, no liability can possibly be incurred by > SGI as a result of such non-existing terms, thus the cannot possibly > apply. [...] > Exactly. The *additional* permission to do something which we don't > want any permission to do at all, can *never* make the license less > free than it would have been without that permission - no matter which > conditions that additional permission had.
Okay, I agree with this assessment. Licenses do not have to forbid relicensing under proprietary terms to be DFSG-free. As long as indemnification clauses do not apply to software when it is licensed under DFSG-compatible terms, it's hunky-dory. Thanks for helping to sort out the legalese. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | "Bother," said Pooh, as he was [EMAIL PROTECTED] | assimilated by the Borg. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgp9cjNZ85ZEb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
