On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:01:45AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 05:05:27PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> > > Clearly §2 is meant to distinguish derived work from original work.
> > > However in our case, this means this package will have to have its
> > > name change whenever we need to patch the source code (eg. fix a
> > > compilation error).
> > This appears to be entirely consistent with the requirements of DFSG #4.
> That's not my understanding of the issue under consideration: more
> details are included in my own analysis [1].
Yes, because as usual your analysis is way out in left field.
> My impression is that clause 2 introduces odd restrictions on how
> modified versions are packaged
"package" is synonymous with "name" in this case. DFSG#4 says free works
may require a name change when modified.
> and insists that modifications be documented in comments (which, depending
> on how it is interpreted, may be a very strong restriction).
You mean like this restriction?
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
You know, the one in the GPLv2?
Your claims that this may be non-free are absurd.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature