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

Re: Is this license DFSG free?

On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 07:17:38PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Saturday 11 June 2005 05:10 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Anthony DeRobertis <anthony@derobert.net> writes:
> > > Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > >> "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
> > >> that you changed the files and the date of any change." Doesn't this
> > >> violate the Dissident test and cause troubles for our poor totalitarian
> > >> state citizen?
> > >
> > > No, because the following statement is allowed by the GPL, and does not
> > > reveal the identity of the dissident:
> > >
> > > "This file was changed on December 10, 2004."
> >
> > Whether that's allowed by the GPL depends on the interpretation of the
> > phrase "stating that you changed the files".
> Agreed.
> The setence is ambigous if broken down sufficiently.  However, if the 
> Anthony's language is sufficient, it strikes me that the GPL is way too 
> verbose.  All you would need the GPL to say to require such a limited 
> changelog would be "provide a notice of the date of any change" without 
> reference to "you."  It is interesting the GPL-FAQ has nothing to say about 
> the topic.

We have a standing opinion from the FSF that the information contained
in a cvs log is sufficient for this purpose, and the identity of the
person making the change need not be disclosed.

The GPL does lie right on the line, but it lies on the 'safe'
line. From a certain perspective, you could say that the GPL is the
delimiting mark (at least, we've never found anything more restrictive
than the GPL in this respect which was still free, to my knowledge -
that doesn't mean it *can't* exist, but it probably doesn't).

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: