MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is it true that a copyright licence with mutually exclusive terms are > non-free? Further, is a licence saying: > > You may prepare, copy and distribute derived works of this > software. However, you may not modify this work.
That is not mutually exclusive. Copyright exists only on works in a fixed form. So, for example, it allows me to write a translation -- clearly not a modification, but is a derived work. It allows me to inspect the work and quote parts in my own. Bug fixes might or might not be allowed -- depends on whether you consider that making a copy, which is then modified, or simply modifying the original. > ...specifying mutually exclusive terms? What does it mean. But in cases where it does happen, I think it's evidence that the author doesn't fully understand the license he's writing. The best -- only -- course for Debian is to not distribute the work at all. It might be possible to distribute it in non-free, if there's a clear permission to distribute unmodified copies... but better safe than sorry, I think. > I am particularly interested in past cases; either discussions on > debian-legal, or from the courts. I realise this may be off-topic for > debian-legal. If I get replies off-list, I will summarise them. This has happened to Debian before. Usually, the upstream author is contacted and the issue amicably resolved. I can recall only one case which remains confused: the Computer Modern fonts, which are part of the TeX/METAFONT distribution. -Brian > Many thanks in advance for any help, > > -- > MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. > Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read > http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
