Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes
Russell Nelson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > 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.
> The DFSG #3 doesn't require that modified versions be distributable
> under the same conditions as non-modified versions. It says that you
> have to be able to redistribute under the same license. You got the
> software with the RPSL, and when you redistribute it, you can license
> it under the RPSL. DFSG #3 is there to ensure that everyone has the
> same rights to redistribute the software -- that there isn't a point
> source of the software.
You are ignoring the *substance* of DFSG and focusing on its literal
wording. As far as we are concerned, the substance is the point. You
may be in an box, faced with RPSL asking or demanding that you certify
their license, but this is your pickle, not ours.
> No. A license may treat different catagories of people differently so
> long as each category's freedoms fit under the DFSG. For example,
> this license abides by the DFSG: "This software is licensed under the
> GPL and the BSD licenses. If you are an educational institution, you
> may abide solely by the terms of the BSD license. Everyone else must
> abide by the GPL."
> It would be ridiculous to say that it didn't.
Right, but the restriction that it adds for the other group (a
requirement of public publication) is one that we have *never*
recognized as DFSG-free. Just never. Ever! It's not like we're
suddenly making this up. We have always regarded it as a sufficiently
onerous restriction to amount to an illegitimate restriction on the
production and distribution of modified copies.
We have no obligation to you or anyone to make the DFSG an exact
anything. You decided to turn it into a definition, despite our
warning that this was a mistake, and now you're stuck. Don't blame