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

Re: Would this comply with DFSG?

I wrote:
> 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.
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

Reply to: