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

Re: Would this comply with DFSG?

Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:

> Would it be a solution to add clauses that if someone for some occult
> reason does not want to send us that simple email they have to
> distribute their modification as patches? That would at least make
> being villaneous more difficult than playing fair.

I just got a possibly better idea: how about something along the
lines of (informal language here, to be made more explicit if it works):

a) you can distribute your modified version under this licence if
   you send us a patch for your modification.

b) if you do not want to send us patches you may distribute your
   modified version under GPL, in which case this licence does not
   cover your modified version or its descendants.

I think the GPL is inconvenient enough for our product to cancel the
competitive advantage of malicious forking. On the other hand, a
licence that any user can, at any time, opt to replace by GPL would
be considered DFSG-free, yesno?

The question is whether Debian would distribute it under the original
licence at all, then. Or more precisely: would Debian policy *allow*
a Debian developer to choose to put the original licence in
/usr/doc/foobar/copyright and then send that silly email upstream
when and if she has any changes?

Henning Makholm

Reply to: