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

Re: DFSG#10 and the Open Source Initiative

On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 04:42:48PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> 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*

I tend to read it as "can not restrict modification at all, except for
legally-required notices (copyright notices, licenses, disclaimers)
and those things explicitly listed in DFSG#4".  I read DFSG#10 as "the
following licenses are accepted, even if they don't meet DFSG#3"; that
is, a grandfathering clause.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: