On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: > However, clause 3(b) worries me a bit: > > > b. If modifications to the SE are released under this > > license, a non-exclusive right is granted to the holder of the > > copyright of the unmodified SE to distribute your > > modification in future versions of the SE provided such > > versions remain available under these terms in addition to any > > other license. > > I recall that we recently discussed whether such clauses are > sufficiently discriminating to fail the implicit "with no > consideration to the author" test of the DFSG. It eludes me what we > concluded, however. I had originally read this as just a no-op modifications must be released under the same license as the SE. However, on closer reading it seems that I was wrong. It really does look like an unrestricted non-exclusive license to sell, relicense, etc. the modifications released under the license. [Kind of like a license requiring FSF's copyright signover request.] I agree with Henning and Branden that this section is not DFSG free. >> This license file and the copyright notices in the source files are >> the only places where the author's names may legally appear without >> specific prior written permission. > > Hm - I wonder whether, if this is enforceable at all, it can be > interpreted literally enough to allow the upstream author to be > identified in the debian/copyright file, as required by policy. I sort of ignored this clause because it seemed to be restricting things that really be restricted. If they want such a clause, the should probably look at the final clause of the BSD license (the endorsement clause.) Don Armstrong -- "A one-question geek test. If you get the joke, you're a geek: Seen on a California license plate on a VW Beetle: 'FEATURE'..." -- Joshua D. Wachs - Natural Intelligence, Inc. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature