Re: Would this comply with DFSG?
> It would go in non-free and thus not be put on CD's.
Henning Makholm writes:
> I don't follow that - can you back it with references to Debian policy
> or the DFSG?
I was referring to this remark of yours:
> The question is whether Debian would distribute it under the original
> licence at all, then.
I meant that it would go in non-free and thus not be put on CD's if you
reverted to the original license. Your dual-license scheme would be
> Now you're saying that B and (presumably) C would be okay for main, but
> that A would have to go in non-free.
No, I'm not. We're talking at cross-purposes. I thought you were
suggesting reverting top the original license.
> Note that the mail-us-your-patch clause only concerns the entity who
> actually makes the modification. It has no relevance for e.g. CD
> manufactures or mirror site administrators that merely pass (perhaps
> modified) copies of the software on whithout adding any modifications of
> their own.
The DFSG requires that *everyone* be permitted to make modifications, not
just the maintainer. Your dual-license scheme would permit that, and is in
my opinion DFSG compliant. It would be up to the maintainer to decide
whether or not to send you the email.
firstname.lastname@example.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill