Re: Darwin Streaming Server
- To: Colin Mattson <colol@ionet.net>
- Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Darwin Streaming Server
- From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>
- Date: 02 Nov 2001 00:07:12 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] tsllmhp92wv.fsf@loggerhead.mekinok.com>
- In-reply-to: <20011030224118.A10290@tigre.ddts.net>
- References: <1004409286.2159.33.camel@zaphod> <20011030165935.A21495@eric> <1004465515.565.10.camel@zaphod> <20011030151816.N32547@plato.local.lan> <1004494984.1250.9.camel@zaphod> <87lmhs8mea.fsf@bignachos.com> <1004503938.2834.2.camel@zaphod> <20011030220446.A9766@tigre.ddts.net> <20011030222029.A10075@tigre.ddts.net> <1004506497.3128.1.camel@zaphod> <20011030224118.A10290@tigre.ddts.net>
>>>>> "Colin" == Colin Mattson <colol@ionet.net> writes:
Colin> On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 12:34:56AM -0500, Shaya Potter
Colin> wrote:
>> so a license that is DFSG free to everybody, just different
>> amounts of DFSG free to different people is considered
>> non-free?
Colin> Correct, and that's exactly why it's non free -- it's
Colin> different amounts to different people.
This discussion came up recently on debian-legal and it's not clear
that your interpretation is consistent with what wasn't quite a
consensus there.
In particular note that everyone can choose to treat the license as if
it said they had to distribute their changes.
However, debian-legal has tended to view licenses requiring changes be
distributed to be problematic in many cases because it makes it hard
to do disconnected development for example without a connection to the
Internet etc.
Reply to: