Re: Question on gnuplot licensing and why it is in main
Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> writes:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:36:02 +0000 Henning Makholm wrote:
>
>> Scripsit "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net>
> [...]
>> > * 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for
>> > * the support of your modified version, and
> [...]
>> No, because the quoted license explicitly allows the distribution of
>> binaries built from modified sources. That kind of patch-clause
>> licenses is specifically blessed by DFSG #4.
>
> Yes, patch-only licenses are allowed by DFSG.
>
> The above quoted clause worries me a bit, though. Identifying
> yourself seems to be a necessary condition for distributing modified
> binaries... Does this pass the Dissident test?
The intent was probably something more like "make sure upstream isn't
bothered with support questions for your modified version", which
would be fine. I don't see any requirement that support be provided
at all, so simply stating that there is no support to be had for the
modified version (i.e. primary contact = null) should be sufficient.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
Reply to: