On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Milan Babuskov wrote: > Jacobo Tarrio wrote: > >>>1. allow anyone to download, copy and redistribute FR source as it is. > >>>2. if someone makes modifications for his own use, he is not obligated > >>>to publish them > >>>3. if someone makes modifications and makes executable version > >>>available, he must make the modifications available to the same person > >>>he made executable version available to. > >>>4. no warranty > >> > >>Alright. Please, folks on debian-legal, can you see any problem > >>including software with such licensing in Debian? Can you recommend a > >>license that satisfies the above points and is DFSG-free? To me it > >>seems like Expat plus point 3 above (but I can't legal-speek-phrase it). > > > > The GPL itself covers these points. In principle, debian-legal discourages > >license proliferation. > > GPL does cover it, but GPL requires that modifications are made > public. We don't want that. The GPL does not require this. > We want that modifications only need to be disclosed to the person > that you give executable to (point 3). This is what the GPL requires. [The difference is that the GPL requires that you be allowed to redistribute to others the source that you have been given, but that's most likely what you wanted anyway.] > Do you suggest we make a modification to GPL? It would be GPL + few > changes. You really don't want to get into the business of modifying licenses. If there's something that the GPL disallows, but you you really want to grant to your users, you can do so by a special exception in the copyright statement, but you should probably talk to the FSF or the SFLC before doing that (or some other legal practitioner versed in the area of Free Software licencing.) Don Armstrong -- My spelling ability, or rather the lack thereof, is one of the wonders of the modern world. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature