Re: license opinion sought
On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 06:25:04PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Osamu Aoki <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Action required:
> > Confirm with the upstream about their preferred methods for satisfying
> > requirement set by this phrase:
> > "The Improvements shall promptly be made available".
> No matter which method is required, the result will conflict with our
> normal interpretation of the DFSG. Such requirements in exchange for
> the right to make private modifications are not considered free.
Wait a moment. Relevant DSFG is
| 3. Derived Works
| The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
| allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license
| of the original software.
If the interpretation of "made available" allows not only private
communication but also "public disclosure" as an option, is this still
non-DSFG-free no matter what?
As I think of how libdb2(sleepy cat) license is accepted in Debian, I
have hard time understanding the drive to exclude of this particular
licence, in my soul. We need some creative thinking.
If someone add an additional licence requirement of "made available by
public disclosure" and become upstream of Debian, then this is DFSG
This author is not in a position to change the existing licence. He is
in a position to re-release it with a clarification for the criteria of
"made available" and an additional requirement of "public disclosure".
This maybe easier to implement than asking the author to dual licensing
with GPL. (I like GPL too if possible.)
Then closes such as "under the same terms" is satisfied too.
+ Osamu Aoki <email@example.com> @ Cupertino, CA USA +
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com