Re: could you safely rewrite the DFSG requirement?
Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes:
> Anyway, from the reported point of the O'Reilly notice, is clear what
> O'Reilly wants: they wants that commercial redistributions of the book
> must be in aggregate form (which from latest posts seems not to be a
> problem with DFSG) _and_ must be "free", i.e. they wants that the
> aggregate result of the redistribution can be freely used again.
>
> So, debian-legal guys, could you manage to write down a "notice" like
> the reported, possibly and hopely changing only the above point, that
> is ok with DFSG or there exists an intrinsic problem that can be solved?
They need to remove the words about DFSG free from that clause, and we
should also request and receive an official notification from them
that binding in even one extra page will count as "aggregation".
Thomas
Reply to: