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?=