On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:08:55 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
> 3. Requireng the changes to be noted in-file is problematic.The rest
> is even more problematic seeming.
> Requiring naming changes may not be DFSG-Free. The clause in the
> guidelines seems to refer to
> package names, not executable names. Requiring inclusion of the
> Standard Version is probably Non-Free.
Requiring inclusion of the Standard Version is non-free, IMHO as well.
You will never be able to fix a bug that the Copyright Holder does not
want to fix.
This clause restrict modification and thus fails DFSG#3.
>
> 4. This clause is confusing. It implies that I must distribute the
> Standard Version along with
> the modified versions, but the latter part about documenting where the
> standard version can
> be obtained, imply that I do not.
It's misleading, but the problem is that it's non-free for the same
reason clause 3 is...
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpQ3Bky01xPo.pgp
Description: PGP signature