Re: Why licenses can -never- be free.
This comes a bit late. Hopefully this will at least give somebody
intellectual satisfaction.
On Mon, Aug 17, 1998 at 12:51:49AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Unless we can short-circuit the process somehow, we are stuck at some
> point at having a non-modifiable license somewhere.
Let's try mathematicians' favourite tool, induction. Provide a base
case and an inductive step.
8<---
The software package foo may be used without any restrictions.
Unmodified versions of foo may be distributed without any
restrictions. Derived works of foo may be distributed with the sole
restriction that they may not be called foo.
Unmodified versions of all licenses set forth in this document may be
distributed without any restrictions. Modified versions of any and
all licenses set forth in this document may be distributed with the
sole restriction that no modified versions of any or all of the
licenses set forth in this document may refer to the software package
foo.
8<---
Does this pass?
Antti-Juhani
Ps. I'd like to see a lawyer interepreting this one. I fear it takes
a mathematician or computer scientist to understand all of the
implications :-)
Pps. This would probably make a good excercise for a first-year course
on mathematics: "Prove or refute: The license given above is
DFSG-free."
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@iki.fi> ** <URL:http://www.iki.fi/gaia/> **
All GNU users have more. Most of them have less.
Some of them have most.
Reply to: