[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is this license DFSG free?

A free software license should not require any
modifications to be submitted to the initial
developer. This doesn't seem to allow releasing my
modified code _myself_ without submitting it to
anyone, only the initial developer can do so.

also this is from the DFSG FAQ:

# The Dissident test.

Consider a dissident in a totalitarian state who
wishes to share a modified bit of software with fellow
dissidents, but does not wish to reveal the identity
of the modifier, or directly reveal the modifications
themselves, or even possession of the program, to the
government. Any requirement for sending source
modifications to anyone other than the recipient of
the modified binary---in fact any forced distribution
at all, beyond giving source to those who receive a
copy of the binary---would put the dissident in
danger. For Debian to consider software free it must
not require any such excess distribution.

such requirement will surely fail this test, hence
should not be considered as a free software license by

-Wei Mingzhi

--- Sean Kellogg <skellogg@u.washington.edu> wrote:

> On Saturday 11 June 2005 04:58 pm, Wei Mingzhi
> wrote:
> > It's not a free software license because of this
> one.
> >
> > 4. Initial Developer as Maintainer of Source Code
> >      The Initial Developer will be acting as the
> > maintainer of the Source Code.  You must notify
> the
> > Initial Developer of any modification which You
> create
> > or to which You contribute, except for internal
> > development and practice, via an electronic mail
> > message sent to info@urbancode.com.  The Initial
> > Developer may provide an Electronic Distribution
> > mechnism for the Modification to be made
> available.
> >
> > This goes against the Freedom 3 of the FSF's free
> > software defination, and the 3rd clause of the
> Debian
> > Free software Guidelines.
> How?  Leaving FSF's Freedom 3 out of the picture
> (unless Debian adopted them 
> at some time), I don't see how requiring the
> contribution of the modification 
> back to source violates Clause 3 of the DFSG:
> "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."
> The license allows modification and derived works,
> and it allows them to be 
> distributed under the same terms as the license.  It
> doesn't say anything 
> about not requiring contribution.
> -Sean
> -- 
> Sean Kellogg
> 2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
> GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
> Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog
> [http://www.acsblog.org]
> w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com
> So, let go
>  ...Jump in
>   ...Oh well, what you waiting for?
>    ...it's all right
>     ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown


Reply to: