Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Russell Nelson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > > You are ignoring the *substance* of DFSG and focusing on its literal
> > > wording.
> > You have no argument why the literal meaning differs from the
> > substance of #3. You can't, because it doesn't. Go read the
> > rationale for #3.
> The *substance* of #3 is to preserve the right to make changes such as
> suit the *changer*.
Please don't change the subject and then claim victory. The subject
at hand is whether the RPSL violates #3 because modifiers have to
publish, but mere redistributors don't. The substance of that part of
#3 is that a recipient gets to redistribute on the same terms as she
received the software.
> > I know, and you can't point to anything in the DFSG that prohibits
> Because debian-legal-free is a particular reading of the DFSG.
How do you read something that doesn't exist? I think it's more
accurate to say that debian-legal-free is a peculiar reading of the
-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.