Re: [prePROPOSAL] DFSG (draft 7)

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

(i'm almost certainly going to vote against any change to the DFSG but
here's my comments anyway):

On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 11:06:26PM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:

> 2.1. Use
> --------
> 
>      Anyone must be able to use the software in any way without paying a
>      fee or royalty or performing any special actions.

"or performing any special actions" is too vague.  what's a special action?
installing the software?

how about changing that to something like "...or incurring any other
obligation as a result of the license".


> 2.5. Distribution
> -----------------
> 
>      Anyone must be able to give away or sell copies of the software and
>      sources without paying a fee or royalty. However, nobody can be
>      required to distribute the software. This includes modified or derived
>      work.

this possibly conflicts with the GPL. the GPL requires you to
distribute/make available the source code for X years if you have ever
distributed a binary.


> 3.1. Notices of Authorship
> --------------------------
>      The license may require the copyright, license, and any associated
>      disclaimers be prominently displayed in the modified software or any
> [...deleted...]
>         * in advertising materials (deprecated)

s/deprecated/barely tolerated and strongly discouraged/


(actually, ignore this one...reading on, i see that you define
'deprecated' in section 5.1)

> 4. Exceptions
> -------------
> 
>      Personal opinions, standards documents and licenses do not have to
>      give permission to modify (See Modification under Freedoms).
> 
>      To be clear, this does *not* apply to works of art, documentation,
>      executables, source code (put more here).

s/this does *not*/this exception does *not*/


craig

--
craig sanders