- From: Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 16:21:56 +0200
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
Le mer. 05/06/13, 11:57, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>:
> I think the distinction of importance here when it comes to Open
> Source licenses is whether the freedom to modify the software is one
> of the freedoms that must be passed on to downstream users of the
> software (as opposed to being a freedom granted to the first recipient
> only).
>
> What is the correct term to distinguish licenses which do and do not
> require that ?
As already answered, you're looking for the copyleft/non-copyleft
distinction. Copylefet licenses require that the freedoms are
passed on downstream; non-copyleft licenses don't.
But this isn't a difference between “open” and “free software”.
> I understood this was the big difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3
> ('anti-tivoization') but I'm happy to be educated on this point.
>
> ...Mark
This is completely unrelated IMHO. The anti-tivoization clause
concerns software coming along consumer products.
--
Hugo Roy | Free Software Foundation Europe, www.fsfe.org
FSFE Legal Team, Deputy Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/legal
FSFE French Team, Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/fr/
Support Free Software, sign up! https://fsfe.org/support
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 14:22:30 UTC