Re: mixmaster license

[Brian Ristuccia <brian@ristuccia.com>]

On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 07:22:59AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, 9 May 2000, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> 
> >...
> > One part that I don't like about the new license[1] is the following
> > paragraph (1.b.iii):
> > 
> >     [you may modify and distribute the source only iff you]
> >        provide Anonymizer Inc. with a copy of the Source Code of
> >        such modifications or work by electronic mail, and grant
> >        Anonymizer Inc. a perpetual, royalty-free license to use and
> >        distribute the modifications or work in its products.
>

This is similar to the Apple notification clause. If Anonymizer Inc. goes
out of business or decides to take down their mail server you can no longer
satisfy this term and thus can't modify the software at all. Notification
clauses have been argued to violate DFSG #1, #3, #5, and #7. I suspect
almost all of these arguments are valid. 

(Note that it would be fine if it read something like "you may modify and
distribute the source only iff you provide everyone who recieves a copy of
the software and/or your modifications a perpetual, royalty-free license to
use and distribute")

I don't consider giving Anonymizer, Inc. special rights a desirable
condition as it may be construed to violate DFSG #5 by discriminating
against people and groups other than Anonymizer, Inc.

-- 
Brian Ristuccia
brian@ristuccia.com
bristucc@cs.uml.edu