On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 22:28, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "David" == David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > David> I think that a logo is beyond a copyright notice that 2 (c) > David> requires the preservation of. Why not suggest switching to > David> the AGPL? > > Does that actually meet DFSG?
I don't know if it's ever been discussed. I feel strongly that the DFSG is a good way to judge whether software is free or not, and I think that the AGPL meets a proper reading of DFSG. Unfortunately, DFSG doesn't discuss what sorts of modifications can be restricted. The Apache license restricts modifications that *don't* also modify the name. The GPL forbids removing code from interactive programs which displays copyright notices. The AGPL forbids removing code which makes the source code available to users of the software. The Microsoft Word EULA forbids all changes. Which of these are acceptable depends on where you want to draw the line. I would argue that any restriction on modification must serve a compelling Free Software interest unrelated to restrictions on modification, and be the least restrictive means possible of accomplishing its goal. I know that this is a rather American way of putting it, but it's hard to overcome my upbringing. Letting users of software get at the source code (which is the aim of the AGPL's (2)(d)) is certainly such a compelling interest. If Xpdf had enshrined its DRM code with licensing, due to its stated goal of following the intent of the author (rather than the law or the goals of the user), this would not be such a compelling interest. If the AGPL had forbidden modification completely to the subsection which delivers the source code (rather than requiring the equivalent functionality), this would have been a more restrictive means than necessary. Keep in mind, here, that I'm not speaking for the FSF, which doesn't think about the DFSG at all. -- -Dave Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF