On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:14:55PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote: > 5. If you are not the Current Maintainer of The Work, you may modify > your copy of The Work, thus creating a Derived Work based on The Work, > as long as the following conditions are met: Please make restrictions attach to distributions of modification, not the act of modifying in and of itself. (Yes, I bitch at the FSF regarding exactly the same point, so I'm not singling you out. :) ) E.g. 5. If you are not the Current Maintainer of The Work, you may modify your copy of The Work, thus creating a Derived Work based on The Work. You may distribute your Derived Work to whomever you choose as long as the following conditions are met: > a. You must ensure that each modified file of the Derived Work is > clearly distinguished from the original file. This must be > achieved by causing each such modified file to carry prominent > notices detailing the nature of the changes, Are you gravely opposed to external changelogs, as might be generated by, say, cvs2cl -- even if those changelogs have to be distributed along with the modified files of the Derived Work? > c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any > addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current > Maintainer's addresses in any way. This is somewhat new ground for a DFSG-free license. Is it *really* that important? If so, I'd like to hear advocates of it explain why it's more free than, say, a prohibition against the creator of a Derived Work calling the Current Maintainer on the phone to ask for technical support. Note that I'm not passionately opposed to 5c); I just want to understand how tolerating it fits into our philosophical schema. I'm in too much of a hurry to spend deep thought on it right now, but I imagine we might be able to tie it into "endorsements" theory, which can already be used to justify clause 3 of the 3-clause BSD license, and parts of the Apache license. I think we should have a good grasp of why 5c) is acceptable, so that it doesn't become a camel's nose for someone else's license. I realize I'm a nitpicky guy, but overall I think the LaTeX and Debian communities have worked together fantastically well on this issue and I'd like to express my thanks to everyone who has participated. I had some pessimism about this subject a few months ago but that has almost completely evaporated. I especially appreciate the patience of Frank Mittelbach and others from the LaTeX Project team. I know this stuff is tedious and not very fun. Debian doesn't sweat these details to be sadistic. We're just paranoid[1]. :) [1] Well, I am, anyway. I guess I can't necessarily speak for anyone else. :) -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | Ignorantia judicis est calamitas branden@debian.org | innocentis. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpSMISAy7h8z.pgp
Description: PGP signature