Re: Ian's DFSG2 would harm Debian and Free Software
Dale Scheetz writes:
> With a proper license forking is no problem, and the freedom that is
> maintained is the users freedom to choose the original work over the
> forked version. Properly used "immutable source" provides additional
> freedoms not provided in other licenses.
I think that doubling the amount of source that must be distributed
could qualify as a problem.
> The license need not prevent re-use simply because it requires original
> source. If I say "You can do anything with this source code as long as
> you provide the unchanged original with all derived work." there is no
> curtailment of software freedom.
I don't think I'd be willing to provide 100,000 lines of 'original souce'
in order to use 100 lines from it in my 1000 line program.
> I see it as a very bad idea to require mutable source. My reasons stem
> from the fact that the copyright is the legal authority for the license,
> and a license that allows the original work to be modified weakens the
> power of the copyright (as it no longer applies to the modified work).
It continues to apply to the modified work as long as the modified work
includes any of the original.
> As I have said repeatedly, requiring the preservation of the original
> unmodified source does not need to restrict the freedom of use of that
> ...and since it protects the original copyright it actually guarantees
> the continued freedom of that source.
How does the GPL endanger the original copyright or the continued freedom
of that source?
I do not favor evicting "patch clause" licenses from the DFSG, but that
doesn't mean I like them.
firstname.lastname@example.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill