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

Re: installing on RiscPC

> > If the terms of the license disallow modification and
> > redistribution then that's a problem.
> > Mind pointing out how that applies to this case?

On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 02:19:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> 1. I think everyone agrees that to pass DFSG #1, the licence must
>    have terms that allow you to distribute _unmodified_ copies to
>    your friends _without_ also (attempting to) give an unmodified
>    copy to the original author, or even telling the author that
>    you're giving copies to your friends.
> 2. By the "under the same terms" language in DFSG #3, these terms must
>    also apply to modifications and derived work. Thus you must be
>    allowed to distribute _derived works_ to your friend _without_ also
>    (attempting to) give the derived work to the original author, or
>    even telling the author that you're distributing derived works.

I don't agree.

In the example we're talking about, the the license terms are the same
for both cases.  There are conditions which kick in when the sources
are modified which are irrelevent if no modifications are made, but the
terms are the same.

Different terms might be: if modified versions of the program required a
new license.  [In which case the question is: why can't we use those terms
for the unmodified version?  If the new terms don't pass the DFSG that's
a problem, though perhaps we could still distribute it in non-free.]

Perhaps you have some other reason for believing that this example
isn't DFSG?


Reply to: