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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:57:51PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Your copy of the DFSG must be missing clause 3.
> | 3. Derived Works
> |
> | The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
> | allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
> | the original software.

My copy of the DFSG does not say "The license must allow all modifications
and derived works, ..."

The issue I've been addressing is the distinction between what the DFSG
actually says, and how it is interpreted.

What it actually says isn't enough for our purposes -- you could say
it's too tolerant of licensing problems.  Unfortunately, the way that
we express how it's interpreted is also inadequate -- what we say we do
is actually less tolerant than what we actually implement.  There's too
many corner cases.


Reply to: