From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Feb 22 19:19:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC3A113F1 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:19:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id UAA29872; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:19:24 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990222200825.03ffb500@mail.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:19:21 -0700 To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: reviewers for a free software license In-Reply-To: <19990222215203.A18876@netmonger.net> References: <4.1.19990222193349.03fc1ba0@mail.lariat.org> <61961.919737106@zippy.cdrom.com> <4.1.19990222193349.03fc1ba0@mail.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 09:52 PM 2/22/99 -0500, Christopher Masto wrote: >One concern I would have about such a license is that it would appear >to violate the Robinson-Patman Act. It would make code free to users, >free to developers of non-GPLed software, and expensive or utterly >unattainable to developers of GPLed software. Brett Glass >specifically states that an effect of his proposed modification would >be to prevent code being used in competing GPLed products. If the GPL is shown to be illegal (which I hope it will be), then such a clause would be invalidated in the new license, too. It would then revert to being the standard BSD license, which is (I believe) what would ideally be used in the first place. In short, the defense against the GPL works unless the GPL itself is ruled invalid, in which case it's not necessary anyway. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message