Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes
Russell Nelson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > > 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.
> > No no, you miss the point. The original software can be distributed
> > without telling anyone anything except the recipient.
> > The modified software can be distributed only if you tell the public
> > at large. That is a different condition.
> No, no, you miss the point. The modified software can be distributed
> by the recipient without telling anyone anything except the 2nd
> The modified software can be modified by the recipient only if he
> tellss the public at large. This is the same condition.
You have misread the RPSL. At least, what you say does not match
version 1.0 of the license as I find it on the helixcommunity web
Clause 2.1(d) refers specifically to *externally deployed*
modifications, i.e., distributed ones. There is no restriction on a
non "externally deployed" modification requiring public notice. The
license specifically says that an externally deployed modification
must be publicly announced.
There is no public notice requirement for external deployment if you
make no modifications.
So there is an *extra* requirement for the distribution of a modified
version: you must make the modifications publicly available. There is
no such requirement on the original version.
There's another DSFG problem, I think.
The license has a notion of "personal use". Personal use is one
category of use of the software; if there are different conditions for
"personal use" than other uses, then the non-discrimination clauses of
the DFSG are applicable.
And, indeed, the restrictions of section 2.1 of the license only apply
if you "Deploy" the software. "Deploy" means, essentially use in any
way other than R&D or "Personal Use". Since there are of course many
things which are neither Personal Use nor R&D, there is discrimination
going on here, where some categories of use are subject to section 2.1
and some are not.