On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > A license that says "{GPL-ish source terms}, but all modifications must
> > be released to the whole world under a BSD-style license" isn't even special-
> > casing the original author, though.
>
> DFSG3:
> > 3. Derived Works
> >
> > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
> > allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
> > the original software.
>
> If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the
> original, then it isn't DFSG-Free.
That's intended to say 'modifications must be able to be distributed
under terms at least as permissive as the original', to lock out
licenses which permit modification and redistribution, but only with
restrictions.
I don't think we ever actually came to a conclusion on the subject of
licenses which only allow *more* permissive terms. The last time we
saw this was, iirc, the NPL. Offhand I'm really not sure whether it's
free or not (lunatics please note: copyright law forces the default to
be 'not'; sucks but that's the law which the corporations bought).
We probably need to do this one from first principles, and in a new
thread.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature