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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

Op di 16-09-2003, om 21:03 schreef Richard Stallman:
>     Debian especially is concerned with the fact that we can't imagine all
>     the future ways of publishing.  How can we tell that it isn't a
>     prohibitive requirement?
> We have to try.  If we accept this, or any, reason to say that any
> requirement might perhaps be prohibitive, and reject any and all
> requirements, that leaves rather few acceptable licenses.  Maybe none.

There's a difference.

        4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
        The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
        modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of
        "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying
        the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit
        distribution of software built from modified source code. The
        license may require derived works to carry a different name or
        version number from the original software. (This is a
        compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to
        restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.)

The GFDL does not even allow patch files. This requirement is too
prohibitive by Debian's standards. Simple.

Your above statement falls in the FUD class.

Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
  -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend

Reply to: