Re: why is graphviz package non-free?
Glenn Maynard <email@example.com> wrote:
> This has come up in the past, under the argument that requiring this violates
> the "under the same terms as the license of the original software" provision
> of DFSG#3: you aren't allowed to distribute modifications under the same
> terms you received them, but instead must grant extra permissions.
I'm still somewhat confused as to what DFSG 3 is meant to mean. As
written, yes, it does sound like it's trying to prevent that sort of
situation. But I've no real idea /why/ that sort of situation is
supposed to be avoided. It was never discussed in the debian-private
thread that lead to the DFSG being adopted. Bruce hasn't replied to my
email asking what he meant it to mean. We've ended up with a sentence
and nothing much in the way of meaning.
Personally, I'm inclined to believe it was intended to mean "The license
must allow modifications and derived works, and it must be possible to
provide all recipients with a full set of DFSG rights". The current
language has the advantage of not being self-referential, which might
explain it to some extent.
Does anyone actually have any compelling reason for believing that the
literal interpretation is what was meant?
Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org