Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[paddy@panici.net]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 09:51:09AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> paddy@panici.net writes:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:28:25AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> 
> >> Which we have always allowed in software, even.  It falls under the
> >> "publish it with another name".
> 
> > the requirement to publish in a specific manner is an additional
> > restriction.  Granted there are software licenses like that, but are
> > they DFSG free ?
> 
> Integrity of The Author's Source Code
> 
>     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. The license may require
>     derived works to carry a different name or version number from the
>     original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian Project
>     encourages all authors to not restrict any files, source or binary,
>     from being modified.)

Russ,

Thanks, but I'm thinking more of the kinds of license that says you *have*
to publish your changes and in a specific venue. seems like a close 
comparison with what has been said here about RFCs.

Seems to me that by the time I can't share my patch with my friend
directly, but *only* post it to the vendor, it is not free software,
and it sounds like this is the situation with RFCs.

Regards,
Paddy