Re: GR idea related to ongoing licensing discussions
* Russ Allbery (email@example.com) [070605 21:09]:
> So, how about we settle this once and for all? The DFSG is not an
> orthogonal basis for a vector space. The world won't end if we add a new
> point to it that some folks feel is redundant with what it already says.
> If there's a principle that we're generally applying for licenses, let's
> just add it to the DFSG so that it's present in clear and unambiguous
> language and everyone knows what the project's position as a whole is.
> For example, for the "desert island test" and part of the "dissident
> test", what about a GR with the following two ballot options:
> The DFSG are hereby amended to add the following additional guideline:
> 10. No Required Contribution of Changes
> The rights attached to the program must not depend on the user
> sending their modifications to any third party to whom they have
> not distributed the program.
> It is the position of the Debian Project that the DFSG does not
> prohibit a license from requiring local modifications be contributed
> back to the license holder or be made publicly available.
> Accordingly, software shall not be ineligible for the main archive
> solely due to such a license term.
I don't agree to either of that :) - I think though the license
shouldn't enforce people to *send* back the software, the license may
enforce that the changes are available (consider some websoftware that
has a license "if you use this software, you must make the software
available for download on your webpage, e.g. as a tar ball"). This works
even on a dessert island, btw :)
(And, BTW, I consider such a change in the licenses to become more
important because of Web2.0 and renting software - even GPLed software
for Web2.0 doesn't give the users more rights then closed source
software, if they cannot get the local changes.)