Re: DFSG#10 and the Open Source Initiative
> > On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:55:27PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > "Must supply source" is allowed under DFSG#3, which says "under the same
> > > terms as the license of the original software".
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 07:48:19AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Which would allow 2a, 2b and 2c of the GPL as well.
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 03:37:28PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> No. "... must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the
> license of the original software." 2a and 2c are restrictions on
> modification, not restriction, which that requirement has nothing to
> do with.
I'm just going to repeat two of the paragraphs you were responding to
in the top quoted paragraph, above:
"Must supply source" is a restriction on the modifications you can
distribute, which is basically the same thing.
You can't distribute binaries that you can't supply sources for.
For example, if the binaries were editted (manually, with a virus,
or -- for the "can't add further restrictions" restriction -- simply
by incorporating code which was provided under a conflicting license).
You seem to be saying that DFSG#3 allows some restrictions on modification
and that it allows none...
> > > > -- for the "can't add further restrictions" restriction -- simply by
> > > > incorporating code which was provided under a conflicting license).
> > >
> > > This is also a debate we've had already; we disagree on this.
> >
> > That was a debate on a different topic.
> >
> > That the effects can be achieved through re-engineering doesn't mean that
> > you're allowed to achieve those effects without that re-engineering.
>
> If you add further restrictions (such as by using code under a conflicting
> license", it's no longer "under the same terms as the license of the original
> software". It's under stricter terms.
I'm just going to repeat two of the paragraphs you were responding to
in the top quoted paragraph, above:
"Must supply source" is a restriction on the modifications you can
distribute, which is basically the same thing.
You can't distribute binaries that you can't supply sources for.
For example, if the binaries were editted (manually, with a virus,
or -- for the "can't add further restrictions" restriction -- simply
by incorporating code which was provided under a conflicting license).
> The second part of DFSG#3 allows
> this prohibition: it only requires that it be allowed under the same terms.
>
> (I've made this argument before, so the usual requests to not repeat ourselves
> apply, unless there's something new to say.)
Your arguments seem to contradict themselves.
--
Raul
Reply to: