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

Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes

Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
 > Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> writes:
 > > Henning Makholm writes:
 > >  > This denies a user the right to make modifications and distribute the
 > >  > modified software (with source code) to his neighbour *without* also
 > >  > distributing it to the public at large.
 > >  > 
 > >  > The consensus on debian-legal that this right is a sine qua non for
 > >  > DFSG-freedom is strong and well established.
 > > 
 > > Where does it say this in the DFSG?
 > Number 3 requires this.

No, it doesn't.  The RPSL allows modifications.  It allows derived
works.  It allows them to be distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software.  Since it complies with all three of
these terms, it complies with the logical and of them, which is #3.

 > >  > which I take to mean that one who accepts the license must effectively
 > >  > give Apple a royalty-free license to use each an every patent he
 > >  > controls.
 > > 
 > > Where does it say this in the DFSG?
 > Numbers 1 and 3 requires this.

I've already disposed of #3.  #1 says that it must not restrict any
part from selling or giving away the software as a component...
Neither the RPSL nor APSL make this restriction.  Nor do they require
a royalty or other fee.

Unless you're saying that the DFSG doesn't say what it says, and that
you have inside information which lets YOU know what the words REALLY
mean as opposed to the standard dictionary meanings of the words, then
you're blowing smoke.

-russ nelson              http://russnelson.com | A government does enough
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | wrong to offset what it
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | does right.  Better that
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | it should do less.

Reply to: