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

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?


Reply to: