On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 03:41:29AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > Hmm... it does, by naming the GPL as an example license. The GPL has > three conditions on modification. Clause 2(a) does add inconvenience: > > a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices > stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. > > Furthermore, 2(c) (too long to quote) actually restricts what kinds > of modifications you can make. > > So there is some precedent for minor limitations on DFSG#3. In practice, > we accept these limitations as still being Free. (I'll add that they are > the reason I no longer use the GPL for my own code, however.) Both true. However, I see no reason to loosen our standards still further in the instant case. > I think DFSG#10 does have binding force, by stating that those licenses > do in fact meet the Guidelines. Any intepretations that would contradict > that are therefore incorrect. Remember, these are Guidelines, not a > Definition. They were never intended to be watertight. I stand corrected. However, I still think DFSG 10 is too vague. It doesn't mention which versions (or variants) of the BSD, Artistic, and GPL licenses we regard as free. I think a future revision of the DFSG should instead have an adjunct document that contains actual license texts that meet the DFSG. Given the non-free license on the text of the GNU GPL itself, maybe we shouldn't list it. :) -- G. Branden Robinson | If you have the slightest bit of Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual integrity you cannot branden@debian.org | support the government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- anonymous
Attachment:
pgpYCHED99emm.pgp
Description: PGP signature