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

Re: [prePROPOSAL] DFSG (draft 7)



On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 11:42:29AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull 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..

No, you're not. I'm still arguing with Darren about this, though.

> > 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?

The current DFSG lets you do a lot of things implicitly, that you
probably shouldn't. One of those is add restrictions on charges (as the
Artistic license does).

We want to close most of the holes, so the DFSG is rewritten to say
`you must let us do this that and the other; but you can require us to
do these other things if you really feel you must'. This is one of the
loopholes we would like to leave open.

> > 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???

No, the GPL requires you to distribute the /current/ source, not the
original source.

> > 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..

Why?

> <snip>
> >         * the GNU General Public License v2 (GPL)
> >         * the GNU Library General Public License v2 (LGPL)
> <snip>
> >      _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>

(the BSD and QPL would be better examples here, since they include
advertising and patch clauses which we know we don't like. I'm inclined
to just add "(deprecated)" notes, though.)

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Attachment: pgpm7y2BHsiga.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: