On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote: > If the Base Format itself is free, why is this non-free? > > On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 19:29, Mark Rafn wrote: > > Does this conflict with DFSG#9? This license effectively insists that the > > Base Format must be free software in order for the Work to be free. > > Well, right, but that doesn't affect the freeness of the Base Format, so > I don't see how it's a contamination of the other software's license.
I've thought a bit more, and I'm pretty sure this is exactly what DFSG#9 is talking about. This software is only free if not distributed with a validating Base Format. It's roughly equivalent to "This software may be modified and distributed except on non-free operating systems". It doesn't demand that all software distributed with it be free, but it does demand (by being unfree if the condition is not met) that a specific part of the distribution is free. > > For me, the file is combined with my non-validating base format (UnLaTeX). > > For him, it's combined with his "standard" latex. I'm not distributing > > the file combined with latex, and neither is he. We're both distributing > > the file by itself. > > > > He's allowed to redistribute under section 2, as he's not modifying it. > > I'm allowed to distribute under 5.a.2, as my Base Format does no such > > validation. > > Sounds fine to me, unless I'm missing something. Then maybe I'm missing something. Theres a lot of text in the license that seems, at first glance, to mean something. However, if anyone can make arbitrary in-place modifications and give them out, I'm not sure how this differs from a BSD-style license. Why not just say "permission is granted to modify and distribute modified versions"? The part about "as long as there exists a non-validating Base Format, which I affirm does exist" is a no-op, right? -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
