Mark Rafn wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Terry Hancock wrote: > > > In many cases, it is to the benefit of the community that > > a standards body officially approves the specification, which > > would seem to translate to not allowing modified versions to > > be distributed > > It doesn't translate that to me at all. It translates into modified > versions stating that they're modified. Or modified versions being required to change their title to something entirely different. Either will do under the DFSG. > > It seems like they would fail, since it normally mandates > > "modify+redistribute" rights for software. > > Absolutely. If I can't distribute a modified version, it's not free. Of course some try to weasel out of this by claiming that the DFSG is meant to only apply to the software in debian (and not to documentation, fonts, graphics, sounds, etc.) I disagree but we probably don't need that debate again. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
pgpfbR0wRDERb.pgp
Description: PGP signature