On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:30:45 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> You're missing my point. While what you said was true, it does not in
> any way refute the statement that we'd also have to distribute
> software which said "This is Abiword" -- the root to which the patches
> are applied.
Perhaps I'm really missing your point...
Correct me, if I'm wrong:
* you said that requiring derivative works to be named as the original
is a smaller restriction than requiring derivatives to be distributed
through patches (in a DFSG#4-compliant way)
* I noticed that there is at least one thing that can be done in the
second hypothesis, but not in the first one: distributing derivatives
with a different name (in source form through the patch trick, in
pre-compiled form without any technical inconvenience)
* it's true that a patch-only license would require distributing the
original source with the original name, along with the patches, but this
doesn't prevent anyone from distributing differently-named derivatives
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpw_xtLPThcW.pgp
Description: PGP signature