* Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-19 15:51]: > Uh, no. There's nothing "proprietary" about it. Have you read > http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html ? DJB's position seems to be that > software licenses are unenforceable, so he chooses to not have one. > Instead, he places restrictions on distribution (I assume he asserts > his rights under copyright law as justification). See > http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
According to the FSF definition of 'proprietary' <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware> I think that DJB's software is proprietary because of the restrictions placed on distribution. You may be using a different definition of 'proprietary'. I think that DJB does have a license for his software to allow for certain types of distribution. <http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html> for example looks like a license to me. <http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html> is a waiver of certain rights provided by copyright preventing distribution - the rights set out at <http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html> - so probably strictly shouldn't be called a license. I assume DJB thinks that his licensing scheme is enforcable, otherwise why use it? The enforcement element can be activated if people start distributing versions of his tools that he hasn't authorised for distribution. It seems to me that the point is not that software licenses as a whole are unenforcable, but that software licenses that aim to remove the rights provided by <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html> are unenforcable. These rights do not include the right to distribute modified software. The key difference between the GPL and DJB's licenses (I think) is that the GPL grants you much greater rights beyond these rights with regards to distribution. This is essentially why DJB's software is proprietary. If somebody starts distributing a new unauthorised version of qmail, DJB can say "I didn't give you the right to do that". If somebody starts distributing a new version of exim, well that's what the GPL is all about. DJB's license is not a free software license according to <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense> <http://www.linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/#djb> makes some interesting points about this issue. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
