Henning Makholm writes: > This denies a user the right to make modifications and distribute the > modified software (with source code) to his neighbour *without* also > distributing it to the public at large. > > The consensus on debian-legal that this right is a sine qua non for > DFSG-freedom is strong and well established.
Where does it say this in the DFSG? > which I take to mean that one who accepts the license must effectively > give Apple a royalty-free license to use each an every patent he > controls. Where does it say this in the DFSG? > which mentions stopping *use*. We object to the notion that one needs > to to comply with specific terms simply to use the software (as > opposed to modifying or distributing it). Where does it say this in the DFSG? My point being that these requirements *should* be in the DFSG, not that you shouldn't come to that conclusion. > I seem to remember that there were also originally a > you-must-follow-US-export-laws clause in the license originally > certified by OSI, but that must have been removed since. Yup, that was a major screw-up on our part. It's since been repaired by the replacement of it by the license you see now. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less, 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.
