Re: license opinion sought
Scripsit Osamu Aoki <email@example.com>
> On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 11:01:06PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Osamu Aoki <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > 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?
> > The usual interpretation is that the license must let the licensee
> > decide whom, if any, he's going to distribute his derived works to.
> Licensee has right to sublicence. So he can choose freely. I though
> this requirement can be met by Debian.
No, as far as I understand, the licensee can not choose only to
distribute his modifications privately to his neighbour. It says
"The Improvements shall promptly be made available by the Licensee to
the Licensor", which means that one can't chose not to distribute to
the original author.
> > This is not idle theory. Licenses have been rejected in the past
> > because they requires users to give the original author a copy of
> > modifications they made.
> Aha, so you mean if user modifies the source code and he use it just for
> him, he should be allowed to keep it secret.
> You insist that this is part of DSFG requirements.
> Can you give me a pointer?
It's "common knowlegde", really ... for one of many occations where it
has been discussed on the list, see
> > No. A license will not be DFSG-free if it disallows non-public
> > distribution of derived works.
> ??? GPL restricts non-public distribution of derived works.
No it doesn't. At least if one understands my words "non-public
distribution of derived works" as meaning "non-public distribution
WITH SOURCE of derived works", which was by intention.
> What's wrong with restricting non-public distribution of derived
> works as a free software?
It is not free anymore.
Henning Makholm "Take a sad song, and make it bitter."
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org