Moshe Piekarski <mos...@melachim.net> writes: > On 4/10/19 7:50 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > > * If the formulation “please do foo” is an enforcible *condition* on the > > grant, then there are several such enforcible conditions that make > > this work non-free: > Given that the wordplay package may not meet the DFSG, do I have to > remove it?
That may eventually be necessary, if the copyright holder(s) can't be convinced to make a DFSG-compatible grant of license in the work. Before that, it would be better to start a discussion with the copyright holder(s) to get a more robust grant under free software conditions. The existing Read Me document gives some hope here: * The spirit of the existing grant seems to be “I want this software to be useful to the world as free software”, which indicates that a future release under a GNU GPLv3-or-later grant could meet their wishes. * The copyright holder clearly wants to be contacted about this and about people building on the work. Let's hope the contact details still work! * So far there seems to be only one copyright holder in the work, which may make it easier to get a change of license grant. You could discuss with them to confirm whether this is still true for the work. -- \ “Following fashion and the status quo is easy. Thinking about | `\ your users' lives and creating something practical is much | _o__) harder.” —Ryan Singer, 2008-07-09 | Ben Finney