On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:09:03AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:32:04PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > >> Why not? A license like the GPL, but with a clause requiring that Foo > >> Inc. have the right to relicense any derivative works as they please > >> is DFSG free? > > DFSG-free means that it can be included in Debian, maintained by our > > maintainers and used by our users. > Now you're being silly. Surely you're not proposing that as an > adequate reformulation of the DFSG? It's the primary reason why the DFSG exists. > Are you saying restrictions on modification are OK so long as they > don't narrow the scope of possible modifications? I.e., the license > can make you jump whatever hoops it likes before modifying, No, because that would mean we couldn't maintain it. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature