Re: AT&T source code agreement
Scripsit "Stephen C. North" <north@research.att.com>
> > A user needs to
> > be able to modify the software, period, without having to take any other
> > action to enable them to perform that action legally.
> Is this Elie's opinion or is it clearly stated in the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines?
You're entitled to your own opinion about whether the statement in
DFSG is clearly made or not, but what Elie writes is certainly an
accurate description of the rationale and philosophy that the DFSG
is meant to implement.
Eventually, whether a licence meets the DFSG is not to be argued in
court - the sole power to interpret the DFSG lies with those Debian
volunteers who decide whether or not a package is allowed into Debian
main or not. Those people will be judging from the spirit of the DFSG
even in cases where the letters may be slightly ambiguous.
> Either way, the AT&T source code agreement section 4.2 states that a
> licensee is only obliged to make the patches available to AT&T when
> they are distributed externally.
The freedoms required by Debian include the freedom for someone to
set up a consultancy business and deliver custom-modified versions
of any Debian component to his customers .. without having to take
any other action to enable them to perform that action legally.
--
Henning Makholm "Det er du nok fandens ene om at
mene. For det ligger i Australien!"
Reply to: