Re: DFSG Draft #8
On Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 01:07:16PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Interesting commentary before (snipped). I fall squarely into the
> second camp (believing that we must fight to keep software free),
I'll certainly agree here.. =>
> The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
> modified form _only_ if the license allows the
> distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the
> purpose of modifying the program at build time. The
> license must explicitly permit distribution of software built
> from modified source code.
> That last sentence is a key point, I don't think I saw it in your
> Also missing are some other key clauses from the original DFSG --
> License must not be specific to Debian, distribution of license, etc.
> Unless I missed these; I've just read your draft once.
> > Copyright Notice
> > ----------------
> > copyright ©1999 Anthony Towns & Darren Benham
> Shouldn't this read Software in the Public Interest?
Not on the draft.. Copyright should be transferred if it's accepted I
> > 2. Freedoms
> > -----------
> > 1. _Use_: Anyone must be allowed to use the software in any way
> > without obligation.
> I'm not sure what "without obligation" here means. Certainly I'm not
> obligated to use software anyway.
hmm, "without cost or other obligation to the authors of the software."
> > 2. _Source Code_: Source code must be freely available if it exists.
> Delete "if it exists". If we have no source code for a program, even
> if the code was destroyed and simply doesn't exist, it should still be
> > Source code refers to the form used by the author to make changes
> > to the software.
> I like the GPL definition better:
> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
> code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
> associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
> control compilation and installation of the executable.
The GPL's definition is a bit verbose for my taste, but the general idea
is there and I like the direction you're thinking.
> > * _Integrity of the Original Work_ The license may use any of
> > the following methods to ensure the integrity of the
> > original work:
> This sounds ambiguous.... "The license may use any..." A license
> doesn't use; it stipulates. You could say, "The license may require
> any of..." But again, naming them makes me nervous.
As it does me, but I believe it's a necessary evil. Perhaps "The license
may require any of thes following conditions be met in order to ensure
the integrity of the original work:" would be better all around?
"Do you think she's the sincere type? ... Yeah, I was afraid of that."
-- Richie Ryan, Highlander: The Series