Re: license opinion sought

[Osamu Aoki <debian@aokiconsulting.com>]

Hi, Henning Makholm.

Thanks for your insight.  If you do not mind, please elucidate me since
you seem to be a regular here.

On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 11:01:06PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Osamu Aoki <debian@aokiconsulting.com>
> > 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.

Licensee has right to sublicence.  So he can choose freely.  I though
this requirement can be met by Debian.

> 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.

Aha, so you mean if user modifies the source code and he use it just for
him, he should be allowed to keep it secret.  You insist that this is
part of DSFG requirements.  Interesting.  Good learning experience for a
NM cue person.  Can you give me a pointer?  (Are you thinking Vim on
01/2002?)

> > If someone add an additional licence requirement of "made available
> > by public disclosure" and become upstream of Debian, then this is
> > DFSG free.
> 
> No. A license will not be DFSG-free if it disallows non-public
> distribution of derived works.

??? GPL restricts non-public distribution of derived works.   Am I
missing something here?  What's wrong with restricting non-public
distribution of derived works as a free software?  I am totally lost
here.

> > This author is not in a position to change the existing licence.
> 
> Too bad. Then it can't go into Debian main.

So, at least, it can be packaged as non-free according to you.  --
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+  Osamu Aoki <debian@aokiconsulting.com> @ Cupertino, CA USA         +


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org