On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 08:09:15PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > Specifically, I am looking at the SC: > > >> 1. Debian will remain 100% free > > > > And the DFSG: > > >> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must > > >> allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license > > >> of the original software. > > > > We would need to change the must allow modifications bit, as I > > see it -- since a license attached to a work must allow modifications > > to the work, as it is currently stated. (I do not consider the > > license to be part of the work). > no, it's not necessary to change anything. > DFSG patch clause. > read it. > explains all. > restricting modifications to original + patch only is explicitly > permitted. Restricting *source* modifications to original + patch is explicitly permitted; this compromise was allowed because it was understood that it still allowed us to put anything we want to in the *binary* packages generated from this patched source, and is therefore not a substantial restriction on our and others' ability to do what we want to with that software. The question of whether an integrity of author's work exception should be extended to binary packages in the case of documentation has never been voted on by Debian. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature