Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
Scripsit Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com>
> Perhaps we should consider amending section 4 of the DFSG so
> that instead of only allowing one restriction on modification (changes
> must be distributed in source form as patches to the unmodified
> sources) to allowing any restrictions on a Debian Free Software
> Warts List. This "warts" list would include the patch, and would
> also include some other carefully chosen statements about what
> we allow.
I agree that explicitly listing which restrictions we _do_ allow in
free software would be much saner than trying to list restrictions
that we do not allow.
> We might also want to stipulate that software without warts
> can't depend on software with warts (I don't think we currently
> do this, but if we're increasing our risk of running into
> problems, we should try to contain those risks).
I think that would be too difficult to manage. Either we consider the
wart free and allow everything else to depend on it, or we consider it
non-fee and classify software appropriately.
(Observant readers may remember that I tried to start some discussion
about rewriting the DFSG along these lines some years ago, at
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00955.html>).
--
Henning Makholm "I tried whacking myself repeatedly
with the cluebat. Unfortunately, it was
not as effective as whacking someone else."
Reply to: