Social contract comments
> 1. The software may be redistributed by anyone. The license for the
> software must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
> them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
> original software. If the license restricts a source file from being
> distributed in modified form, it must allow "patch files" to be
> distributed with the source for the explicit purpose of modifying it
> at build time. The license may require derived works to carry a
> different name than the original software.
We need to be able to distribute modified files rather than originals
plus patches in some situations. In particular, some packages have
files that are in the source and are copied to the .deb files during
package build. We need to be able to distribute `our' version of
these files, even though they may be binary.
I'd suggest replacing that sentence and the next with
The license must not restrict parts of the software from being
distributed in modified form, except perhaps by requiring
that the modifed versions use a different filename or be that
the modified versions not be distributed under the same name
as the original.
In particular, I don't think that software is free if I can't make a
derived work which is substantially different from the original, for
example to make bugfixes and enhancements. I think that restrictions
intended to prevent someone other than the author from `forking' the
software make the software non-free.
> 5. The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> source as well as binary form.
... in both binary and source form. `Source' is the preferred
form for making modifications to the software.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .