Re: license opinion sought
Scripsit Osamu Aoki <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 06:25:04PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Wait a moment. Relevant DSFG is
> | 3. Derived Works
> | The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
> | allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license
> | of the original software.
> If the interpretation of "made available" allows not only private
> communication but also "public disclosure" as an option, is this still
> non-DSFG-free no matter what?
The usual interpretation is that the license must let the licensee
decide whom, if any, he's going to distribute his derived works to.
This is not idle theory. Licenses have been rejected in the past
because they requires users to give the original author a copy of
modifications they made.
> If someone add an additional licence requirement of "made available by
> public disclosure" and become upstream of Debian, then this is DFSG
No. A license will not be DFSG-free if it disallows non-public
distribution of derived works.
> This author is not in a position to change the existing licence.
Too bad. Then it can't go into Debian main.
Henning Makholm "Punctuation, is? fun!"
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org