Re: [Fsfe-uk] Open Source briefings from OSS Watch

[Graham Seaman]

Hi Stuart

Replying to the list +cc rather than sending it to info alone, because I 
think it makes more sense for comments to go somewhere public they might 
be discussed. Hope that's ok.

Stuart Yeates wrote:

> These documents are covered by the GNU Free Documentation Licence and 
> we are keen for feedback on their content and usefulness. Please send 
> your comments to address@hidden (it's a request tracker queue, 
> so your comments don't get lost).
>
> OSS Watch briefings include:
>
> [6] http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/duallicence.xml

I think there is some ambiguity in this one. Firstly, it isn't clear 
whether the sentence 'None of these uses of the term dual licensing is a 
threat in either the short nor the long-term to the open source 
movement' applies to the original definition (the bulk of the text) or 
the second list of alternative meanings. I also assume that it isn't the 
>term<  'dual licensing' that is being considered as a potential 
threat, but the practice.

But secondly, and more practically, one of the practices  you say is 
sometimes known as dual licensing is 'Licensing software and the 
supporting documentation separately'. This does seem to me be a threat 
if it becomes a general practice. For example, JBoss is supplied without 
documentation, but is a very large package which is almost impossible to 
use without documentation. The documentation is non-free and has to be 
paid for at a rate that is difficult for individuals to pay (at least, 
this was true a couple of years ago; I'm assuming that practice hasn't 
changed). This kind of practice gives commercial groups the ability to 
claim their software is free while in practice limiting access to 
corporates; it creates a barrier to entry to that software. I believe 
the GFDL was set up originally to emphasize exactly this point - that 
for software to be free, documentation also needs to be free.

I'm pretty sure you'd agree with this and it's just a question of being 
explicit in the wording, but thought I should point it out anyway...

Cheers
Graham