[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4

Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

>0. Purpose


I think the purpose section should emphasize that it must be possible
to sell Debian for profit, as well as at no cost.

>2. Permissions


>(d) Anyone must be permitted to reverse-engineer it.

I think there should be a definition here (or below).


>3. Exemptions


>(b) Requirement for onward distribution to use particular licence
>The licence may make requirements about the kinds of licence (or other
>contract or similar document) under which people distribute the
>work (or its modified versions), so long as it is still possible to
>distribute the work under according to these guidelines.

I think there's some words missing; I can't make sense of `under
according to'.


>4. Documentation and other non-software works


>(e) When we say that a work need not be modifiable, we mean that
>restrictions may be placed on:
> iii. distribution of the source code, if this is different from the
>form of the work usually distributed (and, we also mean that the
>source code need not be available); and

It seems odd to include the remark about not requiring source to be
available as a parenthetical note in a definition clause.  Surely it
belongs in a separate clause of its own?


>5. Restrictions due to law
>(a) If in a particular jurisdiction any of the activities mentioned in
>section 1 are restricted by law, then the work is not DFSG-free in
>that jurisdiction.  However, legal restrictions which would apply to
>any work which has the same general nature as the work in question do
>not prevent a work from being DFSG-free.

I think that should say section 2, not section 1.


>6. Glossary
>In these guidelines:
>(a) Source code has the meaning given for it in the GNU General Public
>Licence, version 2.

I think this should be spelled out.




>B. Why are `modifications as patch only' licenses not allowed ?

I mentioned this document last night:


There are a number of comments on the difficulty of trying to develop
enhancements to Minix, which only allow distribution of patches - not
complete modified sources.  IIRC most are towards the end of the file.

>Imagine if for every program you'd taken some code from you had to
>supply a complete source archive of that program; with increasing
>code reuse the amount of source being distributed would quickly
>become unreasonable.

Perhaps we should find the size of the diff between GNU Emacs and
XEmacs to illustrate this point.


Reply to: