On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 17:24, Mark Rafn wrote: > > The written offer option stinks. Ok, that's a pretty weak > counterargument, I'll think more about this. I'm pretty confident that if 3(a) were not part of the GPL (leaving only the written offer option), that the license would not meat the DFSG. The major reason is that keeping every version for _three years_ is a major burden on making and redistributing changes, and thus would fail DFSG 1 (and maybe DFSG 3). Thus, I feel, a written offer option can not be used to argue for the DFSG-freeness of a license.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part