Re: Would this comply with DFSG?
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I.e, in addition to letting people fork our project (which I realize
> > could be necessary e.g. when our grant expires if we can not fund
> > further development man-hours), we must let them fork our project
> > and keep that a secret from us.
> > Why on earth?
> Because not every modification is a fork in progress
I'm intrigued here: distributing modified sources without contibuting
them to the upstream author is my definition of a fork if there ever
> -- if someone uploads a new Debian package changing a manpage to use
> "their" instead of "there", you have to be notified. This is
> inconvenient for both us and
1) Sure. Why, I *want* to be informed about typos. How would I be able
to correct them in the master source otherwise?
2) Didn't I just see a commitment to doing that sort of stuff in the
"Socian Contract" on the Debian website? <checking..> yes, it is there
still, it is point #2. Where's consistency?
> Because "honest attempt" is a little bit... vague.
That is intentional, it is an attempt on my behalf not to make further
development impossible lest we suddenly disappear from the internet.
> What happens if your policy on email changes, and you start only
> accepting email that has an ecash postage stamp
I hoped the text made clear that sending an ordinary email (even if
it bounced or one got no reply and suspected it had disappeared
underway) would qualify as an "honest attempt". Obviously I failed.
How could I improve the wording in that respect?
> they should be obligated to let you use their modifications, just
> as you let them use your original.
Nobody objected to that part so far. The trouble is knowing there *is*
anything I'm entitled to use at all.
Would there be any acceptable alternative that does not leave the door
wide open to malevolent abusers?