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

Re: DFSG as Licence?

On Sunday 11 June 2006 19:25, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle@freenet.de> writes:
> > Hello *,
> >
> > Since I have read tonns of different licences I do not realy know
> > what to do.  Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception
> > of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my
> > Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG.
> >
> > Question:
> >
> > Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence?
> >
> > I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok,
> > but I have complains against the new one.
> If you do not like gpl3, use gpl2 without the "or later" option, if
> that does what you want.  The FSF won't like you if you do, but nobody
> is under any obligation to please them.  Personally, I'm allergic to
> more than two paragraphs of legalese, and I don't want to release my
> work under terms I do not fully understand, so I release my stuff
> under the MIT license.  It gives a little more permission than the
> GPL, but I don't really care if someone uses my code in a commercial
> application.  

GPL allows commercial applications, but what GPL does not allow is becoming a 
'proprietary application' (non-free). E.g. you are not allowed to grab a 
GPL'ed source code, modify it and distribute the modified binaries only. In 
that case GPL force you to publish the your source modifications, which is 
perfectly in the spirit of free software ... e.g. what is give is what you 

pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 

Reply to: