Noah Slater nslater at tumbolia.org
Sun Mar 8 21:46:16 UTC 2009

On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 05:29:31PM -0400, "Andrés G. Aragoneses" wrote:
> The mechanism to protect the developer tools here would be to add an
> additional clause that states that, if the DGPL software is used for
> aiding/helping/supporting the development of other software, and this
> resulting software is distributed in any form, it should be DGPL as
> well. (The 'D' stands for "Developer".)

My uneducated opinion is that you'll never get this accepted by the FSF or OSI.

You're essentially restricting field of use, which is freedom zero.

You've lost my interest at this point, but that's just me.

> 1. Proprietary developer tools turn DGPL. I know some feasible cases in
> which this could happen, because the company seeks community building
> and wide adoption. Most companies like these, normally offer
> free-licenses to open source developers, but they have to still remain
> closed source. If they turned into DGPL, their software products could
> be started to be integrated into the free-software ecosystem, avoiding
> the reluctance of open source developers to them.

I would stop using such tools.

I do a significant amount of work for the ASF, and we use the APL.

My work for Debian uses the GNU All Permissive.

Some of my personal stuff is CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, depending on my mood.

My work for GNU is GPL 3.

Forcing me to choose once license each time rules it out of my toolbox.


Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater

More information about the Discussion mailing list