On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 05:56:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > So, debian-legal guys, could you manage to write down a "notice" like
> > the reported, possibly and hopely changing only the above point, that
> > is ok with DFSG or there exists an intrinsic problem that can be solved?
>
> They need to remove the words about DFSG free from that clause, and we
Tell me if I understand correctly: I (we) have to remove the DFSG
requirement fully not to violate the DFSG point "License Must Not
Contaminate Other Software", right?
So I can't rewrite the point in such a way it impose that commercial
distributions are themselves "free", in the sense of "free software",
right again?
> should also request and receive an official notification from them
> that binding in even one extra page will count as "aggregation".
Please, tell me why we (as debian) have to care about "aggregation".
Why we can't leave it as it is and leave O'Reilly care about this if
anyone will redistribute a version of the book attaching to it only a
page or a line or a character?
Anyway, a possible rewrite may be as follows:
<old_version>
- commercial products that include this document are themselves
compliant with the DSFG and don't consist of this document only.
</old_version>
<new_version>
- commercial products that include this document don't consist of this
document only.
</new_version>
Cheers.
--
Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <zack@cs.unibo.it> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy
- Information wants to be Open -
Attachment:
pgpEhvfWMlLG_.pgp
Description: PGP signature