[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LPPL and non-discrimination

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:09:03AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

>> > 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.

Well, at this point this is all "Is so!" and "Is not!" -- and I'm
quite happy to bow out of that.

I would be interested in an answer to the question in my last message,
namely how to distinguish between this ABC-DFL and licenses that
require other sorts of consideration before modification.  What sorts
of consideration (if any?) are inappropriate for a DFSG free license?
Otherwise, I'll simply accept that my understanding of the DFSG isn't

Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Reply to: