Anthony Towns <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:09:03AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: >> Anthony Towns <[email protected]> writes:
>> > DFSG-free means that it can be included in Debian, maintained by our >> > maintainers and used by our users. >> Now you're being silly. Surely you're not proposing that as an >> adequate reformulation of the DFSG? > > It's the primary reason why the DFSG exists. > >> Are you saying restrictions on modification are OK so long as they >> don't narrow the scope of possible modifications? I.e., the license >> can make you jump whatever hoops it likes before modifying, > > No, because that would mean we couldn't maintain it. Well, at this point this is all "Is so!" and "Is not!" -- and I'm quite happy to bow out of that. I would be interested in an answer to the question in my last message, namely how to distinguish between this ABC-DFL and licenses that require other sorts of consideration before modification. What sorts of consideration (if any?) are inappropriate for a DFSG free license? Otherwise, I'll simply accept that my understanding of the DFSG isn't representative. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
