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

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),
> incidentally.

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
> draft.
> 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.

Good points.

> > 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
> non-free.


> >           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

Reply to: