> One fundamental purpose of the free software community is to ensure that
> free software thrives. To this end, the recipient SHOULD (as in the RFC
> meaning of SHOULD) make changes available to upstream and do so in a way
> that upstream likes. But changing that SHOULD to a MUST changes the
> software from free to non-free. Now you have (perhaps severely)
> restricted the recipient's freedom to make changes.
I have no idea why you think this is relevant.
I am certainly not saying that we "MUST" send changes upstream.
I'm saying that if we _can't_, even if we want to, because we don't
have the right form of the software, it's not Free Software for us.
I am saying out that if we do not have the form in which upstream
accepts changes, we don't have the source.
> By your definition, a complete fork of a piece of software would still
> be required to use upstream's preferred form. Even though the new fork
> has a new upstream, changing the preferred form would be a violation of
> the license terms, so the fork would not be allowed if the new upstream
> preferred a different form.
This hypothetical scenario is completely irrelevant and full of red
Unless you are claiming that this has happened to the software being
discussed in this thread ?