On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:39:57 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within 28
> > > days of an upstream release, I doubt that Debian would like to
> > > commit to that, and certainly the package would have to remain
> > > unreleased.
> > >
> > > So I think this would require a package name change. Any other
> > > opinion on that?
> >
> > It would also require the package(s) to be moved to the non-free
> > archive, I think.
>
> 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.
I'll requote it here:
| 3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name
| of this software ("ion", "ion3", etc.), must provide the latest
| release with a reasonable delay from its release (normally 28
| days). Older releases may be distributed, if the full version, or
| some other explicit indicator, such as the word "ancient", is
| part of the name that the package is accessed with, or if this
| identifier is completely unrelated to a name of this software.
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:
] 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
] The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
] modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
] "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying
] the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit
] distribution of software built from modified source code. The
] license may require derived works to carry a different name or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
] version number from the original software. (This is a compromise.
] The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any
] files, source or binary, from being modified.)
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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
] aggregate software distribution containing programs from several
] different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other
] fee for such sale.
--
http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html
Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpXrY1Dennzz.pgp
Description: PGP signature