Re: Anton's amendment
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:24:44PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>
> And the reasoning why "Currently there is no such problem" is based
> on the assumption that there are only a few invariant sections
> (except for history, of course), in other words because mostly only
> the FSF uses this option.
Yes - I am explaining why _currently_ this is not a problem. :-)
I have some considerations that make me think this won't be a problem
in future but I can not prove this for sure and I don't have to prove
it. DFSG allows licenses that prohibit compilations.
> > It is no less free than the licenses that directly prohibit compilation
> > works.
>
> Personally, I would regard a license that prohibits compilation of a
> work under that license with other works under the same license, but
> from a different copyright holder, to be non-free. I am not aware of
> any works in Debian under such a license.
OK, I am going repeat this at least for third time :-)
Debian acknowledges as free some licenses that require that the
source of all derived works is distributed in the form
original_source+patch. If you have two works covered by such
license then there is no permissible way to distribute the source
of the combined work (unless the combined work is merely
aggregation of independent derivatives of both works).
Anton Zinoviev
Reply to: