Re: software licensing
On Mon, Aug 31, 1998 at 04:27:02PM -0700, Derek Noonburg wrote:
> Ok, here's a rewritten draft of my Reasonable Software License. As
> before, I'm interested in any comments, especially where something is
> unclear or ambiguous.
>
> Also, I'd like to make sure this license meets the DFSG. I'm pretty
> sure it does (I wrote it with the DFSG in mind), but if you disagree,
> please let me know.
>
> The Reasonable Software License (RSL)
> -------------------------------------
[snip]
> a. The copies must include all associated documentation:
> i. the README file; and
> ii. the man pages and/or help files applicable to program(s)
> included in the distribution; and
> iii. this license.
>
> b. If the package includes modified source code or binaries
> compiled from modified source code, all modifications must be
> identified in the package documentation, and the modifications
> must be publicly available as described in Section 3.
I'm not sure that this is an issue but - along with some parts of
section 3, this is unclear as to how it treats the documentation. If
the debianized package were to move a file and want to change the
pathname in the documentation, a common enough case, how must this
change be indicated? Is the documentation considered source code or a
binary compiled from modified source code? I think you must explicitly
give permission to make certain modifications to the documentation.
See the unending Open Documentation thread.
Dan
Reply to: