Re: DFSG#10 and the Open Source Initiative
@ 26/05/2004 16:22 : wrote Glenn Maynard :
Do you have any other examples of restrictions on modification that
are (and should be) allowed? Since your premise is "_almost_ _any_
license", you should be able to find some examples in licenses that
aren't confused by DFSG#10.
none that I can think of right now, what is to say I think you have at
least /some/ good arguments. One doubt: is your reading of the DFSG the
following (seems stricter than mine)?
1. the license should not forbid and modifications, with two groups of
exceptions: it can forbid / must forbid / it's forbidden anyway the
"primary" ones (I am lacking a better term -- meaning copyright notices,
license texts, the GPL invariant preamble, is there another one?) and it
can optionally forbid the "secondary" ones: GPL#2a and GPL#2c; if you
can't distribute modified sources, it's imperative that you can
distribute the original tarball+patches and the patched binaries; *OR*
2. the license should be one of: GPL (v2? v2+?) // BSD-MIT-X (2 clause?
3 clause?) // Artistic (Revised, I hope!?, or any version?)
is that it?