Re: Draft new DFSG

[Daniel Martin <dtm12@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>]

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

<SNIP>
> 3. Exemptions
> 
> (a) Requirement to distribute source code
> 
> The licence may require source code for the work to be distributed
> whenever the executable is distributed, provided that:
<SNIP> 
>  ii. The licence allows the distributor of executables to offer to
> distribute the source code instead of actually distributing it.  The
> licence
>    (1) may require the offer to be in writing
>    (2) may specify some minimum length of validity of the offer (not
>        more than 3 years)
>    (3) may require the offer to be open to all third parties.

I'd suggest rephrasing point (2) to:
     (2) may not require that any such offer remain valid for more
         than 3 years
That still is a bit convoluted, but it seems slightly clearer - it
took me a little while to realize that point (2) as written does in
fact mean what it's intended to mean.

<SNIP>
> (h) Changed name or version number for modified version
> 
> The licence may require modified versions to be distributed under a
> different name or with a different version number, provided that this
> doesn't interfere with using the modified version as a replacement for
> the original.

I'd like to see this changed to:
  The licence may require modified versions or (versions distributed
  under a different license per (b) above) to be distributed under a
  different name or with a different version number, provided that this
  doesn't interfere with using the modified version as a replacement for
  the original.

This is so that a name change can be required if, for example, I take
some bit of code under a NPL-ish license (that is, free but entity XYZ 
can use the code for non-free stuff) and release a GPLed version.
(A license that allows stuff similar to this came up in an IRC
conversation about how TT might adjust the Qt license so that it could 
be GPL-compatible).

> (i) Advertising restriction (deprecated)

This makes me nervous - I'd prefer to not have the DFSG have a
built-in time-out.  As much as I approve of saying "advertising
clauses are disapproved of", I don't know that I'd want to throw out
BSD-ish stuff.

<SNIP>
> 4. Restrictions due to law
> 
> (a) If in a particular jurisdiction the distribution, modification or
> use of a work is restricted by law, then the work is not
> DFSG-free in that jurisdiction.
> 
> (b) It is still DFSG-free in other jurisdictions, provided that those
> who control (directly or indirectly) the work and the conditions under
> which it is distributed, do not have the power to lift the
> restrictions other than by changing the nature of the work, and
> express a desire that the legal restrictions be lifted.

I object to the phrase "express a desire that the legal restrictions
be lifted" - I'd like to consider xyz crypto package free even if the
author heartily approves of the US crypto restrictions because, for
example, they allow his country to have a booming software crypto
industry.

> (c) In the case of restrictions due to patents, a work can in any case
> not be DFSG-free if those who control the work and the conditions
> under which it is distributed are software patent aggressors.

I _strongly_ object to this.  In fact, I can't think of any possible
way to rephrase it that will satisfy me.

I would like to see some other section dealing with patent issues, but 
only to the extent that (for example) Cygnus's latest real-time
embedded OS is free.  (See the extent to which their patents are
licensed with the source code - I think that's a good dividing line).