[License-discuss] [Fedora-legal-list] Re: The license of OpenMotif (Open Group Public License)

[Florian Weimer]

* Bruce Perens:

> Both Red Hat and Debian treat the terms of the distribution the same as
> what they ask for in the software. When I last checked, Red Hat was using
> the GPL Version 2 as a compilation license. Both wanted commercial
> derivatives (Red Hat for their own use). So, this sort of restriction was
> not allowable. We did think about this when drafting the DFSG, and drew up
> OSD #8 and #9 because of it.

I'm confused by this comment.  Aren't you confusing commercial and
proprietary derivatives?

I don't think the old OpenMotif terms were anti-commercial, they were
anti-proprietary.  (They may have been intended as anti-commercial, by
not taking the GNU/Linux market seriously.)

 And due to the amount of software under copyleft licenses (and the
difficulty of meeting notification requirements in the permissive
licenses—without distributing source code), I think any further
restriction on proprietary derivatives would be rather meaningless
anyway.