On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:10:26 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:01:45AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > 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. I really cannot understand the reason for all this hatred. Did I do any nasty things to you in the past? Are you unable to have a discussion without indulging in ad hominem attacks? > > > 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. As Walter Landry pointed out [2], these packaging restrictions interfere with the ability to create drop-in replacements and with the freedom to translate the work into other programming languages. These restrictions seem to go beyond what is allowed by DFSG#4. [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/04/msg00017.html > > > 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. No, I mean like the restriction actually included in the clause under discussion: "the modifications are documented in comments". This restriction looks definitely different from the one you quoted from the GNU GPL v2. The GPL just requires me to write notices where I state that I changed the files and the date of any change. On the other hand, the restriction under discussion requires me to document the modifications in comments. As noted by Walter Landry [2], this forces the use of comments, which may be syntactically unavailable in some cases. Moreover, this restriction is a bit vague, and could be even interpreted as requiring that the reasoning behind each modification is explained and discussed thoroughly in comments. This would be a very good documenting practice, but mandating it through licensing terms looks fairly overreaching (at least to me). > > You know, the one in the GPLv2? > > Your claims that this may be non-free are absurd. I don't think so, since, as explained above, the restriction under consideration is different from the one found in the GNU GPL v2. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgp8PZQ6jfbMx.pgp
Description: PGP signature