[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote: > Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a > > modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code. > > This makes it possible to distribute it in a (more or less) closed group > > of people and not having to provide a copy to the maintainer (that's > > me). For example, it would be possible to distribute a modified version > > of Vim within a company, so long as the sources are also available to > > the people using this modified version of Vim. Thus it's possible that > > the changes are kept as a secret within that company. > > The new license you just posted, in my opinion, would be DFSG-free. > It seems to me that it would also be GPL compatible, but I'm not > certain and I'd want to hear what RMS has to say about that.
I agree that the license is DFSG-free. However, I don't think that it is GPL-compatible. In the license, there are four options for distributing modified copies. The first option (3a) is just the old Vim license and is GPL incompatible. The second (3b) is permission to distribute those modified versions even if you're not the one who modified it. The third (3c) is more tricky. It reads > c) Provide the changes, including source code, with every > copy of the modified Vim you distribute. This may be done in the > form of a context diff. You can chose what license to use for new > code you add, so long as it does not restrict present or future > official Vim distributions in any way. If the license were GPL-compatible, I could license my changes under the GPL, and never talk to the Vim maintainer. However, one of the things that Bram wants to be able to do is relicense the whole thing under a proprietary license. This is exactly the sort of thing that the GPL is designed to prevent. So a GPL patch would restrict future official Vim distributions. I don't think that there is a way out of this quandary. Relicensing the code of contributors under a proprietary license is one of Bram's goals with his license, and the GPL is just not compatible with it. The fourth option (3d) is very similar to the GPL's option of allowing written offers instead of actual source code. It has an enforced licensing problem that is very similar to the third part, but is otherwise (I think) compatible with the GPL. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
