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

Re: New Ion3 licence

Le samedi 28 avril 2007 à 02:27 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > Then I think you've misread.  Patch clauses and name change clauses
> > are explicitly allowed under the DFSG, although they are discouraged
> > for obvious reasons.  The fact that some revisionists dislike them
> > doesn't make them fodder for non-free.
> There's no revisionism going on here, AFAICT.
> The quoted clause 3 seems to be neither a patch-only clause, nor a
> name-change clause.

They are a name-change clause: without the name change the license is
non-free, with the name change it is.

> This seems to mean that I can redistribute an *unaltered* package for 28
> days from its initial release, then this permission suddenly
> *disappears*, *unless* I change the name to something unrelated or add a
> word such as "ancient" to the name itself.
> We're talking about an original *unmodified* version of the work, while
> DFSG#4 talks about modified versions of works:

Then let's modify it - say, by renaming it and adding a debian/
directory - and we'll have a modified version that's DFSG-free.

> In fact, the above-quoted clause 3 fails to meet DFSG#1, which states:
> ]   1. Free Redistribution
> ]      The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ]      selling or giving away the software as a component of an
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sure, we cannot distribute the non-modified one. And we can distribute
the modified version. No problem here either.

: :' :      We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'       We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-        our own. Resistance is futile.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

Reply to: