On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:22:27AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > > Personally, I don't like it. Use of DFSG4 (beyond "The license > > may require... a different name") isn't really encouraged, and if > > one can't distributed modified binaries because there are no > > binaries, the software feels very non-free to me. The process to > > install modified versions would be like Debian installs PINE now. > > I agree, and myself I'd prefer just using the Artistic license or > something. But I'm not the copyright holder, so it's not up to > me. And I do not think it's possible to hope for more than the > clause I just suggested. As the DFSG puts it; "this is a compromise". Please don't encourage or recommend it anyway. You'll just have to go back to the guy again in the event that agitators like me end up getting that portion of DSFG 4 stricken, anyway. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | If existence exists, branden@debian.org | why create a creator? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpNC6YxxlUMg.pgp
Description: PGP signature