Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4
Ian Jackson <email@example.com> writes:
I think the purpose section should emphasize that it must be possible
to sell Debian for profit, as well as at no cost.
>(d) Anyone must be permitted to reverse-engineer it.
I think there should be a definition here (or below).
>(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
>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.
>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.
>APPENDICES AND RATIONALE
>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
Perhaps we should find the size of the diff between GNU Emacs and
XEmacs to illustrate this point.