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

Re: [prePROPOSAL] DFSG (draft 7)

(Note that I'm almost certainly going to vote against anything which is
massively longer or more complex then the current DFSG, but comments
(Also note that I'm going to skip most things already covered by others)

On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 11:06:46PM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:

> 3.3. License of Derived Works (deprecated)
> ------------------------------------------
>      The license can impose license requirements on modified and derived
>      software as long as the result still meets these guidelines.
>      The license can impose license restrictions on the third party
>      components (such as libraries) necessary to compile the software as
>      long as the restrictions are compatible with the original license.
>      The license may not impose restrictions on third-party software that
>      merely resides on the same system or distribution as the licensed
>      software.

So the GPL is considered deprecated because it requires that modified
or derived software is also under the GPL!?!?!?!?!?!?

Please tell me I'm reading this wrong..
> 3.4. Restrictions on charges (deprecated)
> -----------------------------------------
>      The license can restrict the amount charged for the software itself if
>      reasonable distribution fees are allowed. It may not place
>      restrictions on either fees charged for other software in a
>      distribution or the cost of a distribution as a whole.

Errr, I'm not seeing this in the current DFSG, why add this at all?

> 3.6.4. Original source (deprecated)
> -----------------------------------
>      Distribution of modified software may be required to be accompanied by
>      an offer to distribute the original source code.

And again, this makes the GPL considered deprecated?
This time because it has this requirement???

> 5.1. Deprecated
> ---------------
>      By deprecated, we mean this is allowed but discourage and disliked.
>      These items may be removed in future versions. Also, software without
>      deprecated clauses is recommended over software that has licenses with
>      such clauses.

See above with GPL...
> 5.2. Non-binding Requests
> -------------------------
>      The license may make any number of non-binding requests. These should
>      be clearly separated from the binding section of the license.

I'd like to see something which excludes requests which are non-binding
but say that it would be immoral or unethical not to comply, or such..

>         * the GNU General Public License v2 (GPL)
>         * the GNU Library General Public License v2 (LGPL)
>      _This list is a list of possibilities. Before the document would be
>      released, the list would be modified to mention the licenses that
>      truly do fit_

Errr, do you really want to list licenses which do so many things which
we say we don't like? <G>

Zephaniah E. Hull..
(Who should be asleep at the moment..)

 PGP EA5198D1-Zephaniah E. Hull <warp@whitestar.soark.net>-GPG E65A7801
    Keys available at http://whitestar.soark.net/~warp/public_keys.
           CCs of replies from mailing lists are encouraged.

Attachment: pgpaopJahg8iR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: