Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> writes:

> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
>  > > No, it doesn't.  The RPSL allows modifications.  It allows derived
>  > > works.  It allows them to be distributed under the same terms as the
>  > > license of the original software.  Since it complies with all three of
>  > > these terms, it complies with the logical and of them, which is #3.
>  > 
>  > No no, you miss the point.  The original software can be distributed
>  > without telling anyone anything except the recipient.
>  > 
>  > The modified software can be distributed only if you tell the public
>  > at large.  That is a different condition.
> 
> No, no, you miss the point.  The modified software can be distributed
> by the recipient without telling anyone anything except the 2nd
> recipient.
> 
> The modified software can be modified by the recipient only if he
> tellss the public at large.  This is the same condition.

So you are now saying that the license imposes a restriction on
modification even if I don't distribute anything at all?  That makes
it beyond the power of copyright law at all, it seems to me.

In any case, we have carefully explained to you how we interpret the
DFSG--and always have done.  Since the OSD was copied from the DFSG, I
assume that you, in the interests of preserving the synonymy of the
documents, will adjust the OSD interpretation to suit.

Or, rather, I expect you won't because your pretended interest in
synonymy is bullshit, and really just an attempt by the OSD to declare
to Debian how we will interpret and use *OUR* document which *YOU* got
from us.