On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 08:35:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> It seems to me that the more likely outcome in this event would be a
> conclusion either that the license is altogether invalid, or that anyone
> having made modifications to RT3 has failed to comply with the license,
> resulting in a finding that anyone making modifications is infringing Best
> Practical's copyright.
It's worth noting that both of these outcomes are not just non-DFSG-free
(which isn't a big deal to some folks), but in the former case would make
the work undistributable even in non-free ("no license" means "no license to
redistribute freely"), and in the latter case might render the work too
crippled to distribute in non-free according to our current practices.
(I'm familiar with packages in non-free that prohibit redistribution for
commercial purposes -- I'm not aware of any that prohibit modification
altogether. The latter would make it challenging to fix bugs.)
--
G. Branden Robinson | Religion consists in a set of
Debian GNU/Linux | things which the average man thinks
branden@debian.org | he believes and wishes he was
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | certain of. -- Mark Twain
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature