Hi, On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 20:41, Henning Makholm wrote: > I also don't think that your proposal (A) is an "interpretation" or > "clarification". It is a *change* Right, maybe ... > - the current language "as a > component of an aggregate software distribution" is hard (but > apparently possible) to misunderstand. ..., but the result of the small LaTeX2HTML discussion last month seems to show a big misunderstanding because everybody involved claimed rather (A) (and would actually cause packages to be removed from the archive if I would not ask the question "again" now). If there were more of this kind of questions within the last "5+ years" and nobody objected to answers like the ones last month, maybe just nobody recognized the "challenges" to the DFSG. ;) > > Remember that (B) seems to violate DFSG.8! > > You're misunderstanding DFGS #8. Saying "you may charge money for this > program if you bundle it with something" is in no way specific to > Debian. Anyone, not just Debian, can do such bundling and get the > right to charge money for the bundle. DFSG.8 requires the "parties to whom the program is redistributed" to "have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system". I.e. since there's the right to sell the aggregation, there "should" (DFSG wording in #8) be right to sell the program alone. Or is the "should" in the DFSG the same "should" as in the Policy Manual, where it refers to something that isn't really _required_ to be fulfilled? bye, Roland
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part