Re: the meaning of 'the same terms" in DFSG 3, and why the QPL fails it (was: An old question of EGE's)
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:
>DFSG 3 was intended to forbid licensors from placing themselves in a
>specially advantaged position. If not, why doesn't DSFG 3 simply say:
>
> The license must allow modifications and derived works.
>
>=2E..hmm?
It did in the first draft. The language that ended up appearing in the
final form only turns up after Bruce went off to discuss things with ESR
(there was some sort of ncurses licensing fun going on at the time -
ncurses didn't allow distribution of modified works. The phrasing of
what was at that point DFSG 1 but ended up being split into several
different clauses was apparantly designed to make sure that ESR was
happy).
There's no discussion of /why/ there was the change of language - it's
not clear that it was supposed to make any substantive change to the
meaning. I think we'd have to ask Bruce to have any real idea.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: