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

Re: definitions of free

On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 10:42, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Consider this sentence from the GNU Project's Free Software Definition:
> > It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have 
> > distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a
> > copy of it, you must send one.
> Any software with such a requirement would be non-DFSG-free.

So that's not an appropriate restriction, at least according to the

What if it were just "must be emailed" - eg. if it were "must be posted"
then the cost could be prohibitive for someone in the 3rd world right?
But email, that should approach zero cost right?

So the question is, is such a restriction appropriate/ moral?

If it is not, why not?

If it can be, under what circumstances?

If so, then perhaps it's time for another GR (don't worry, IANA DD, so I
can't actually propose such myself, yet :)


Reply to: