@ 26/05/2004 18:10 : wrote Glenn Maynard : > On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 04:42:48PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote: > >> none that I can think of right now, what is to say I think you >> have at least /some/ good arguments. One doubt: is your reading >> of the DFSG thefollowing (seems stricter than mine)? >> >> 1. the license should not forbid and modifications, with two >> groups of exceptions: it can forbid / must forbid / it's >> forbidden anyway the "primary" ones (I am lacking a better term >> -- meaning copyright notices, license texts, the GPL invariant >> preamble, is there another one?) and it can optionally forbid the >> "secondary" ones: GPL#2a and GPL#2c; if you can't distribute >> modified sources, it's imperative that you can distribute the >> original tarball+patches and the patched binaries; *OR* > > > I tend to read it as "can not restrict modification at all, except > for legally-required notices (copyright notices, licenses, > disclaimers) and those things explicitly listed in DFSG#4". I read > DFSG#10 as "the following licenses are accepted, even if they > don't meet DFSG#3"; that is, a grandfathering clause. >
Yes, I can see. I don't agree, tough. One more question: is this (below) non-free? >>>>>> This essay is hereby licensed to the reader, granting full >>>>>> rights of modification and redistribution, provided every >>>>>> derived work of it does: (1) maintain my copyright notice >>>>>> intact and positioned near to the top of the text AND (2) >>>>>> mentions the original title AND (3) is distributed under this >>>>>> same license. It strikes me as a free, strong-copyleft, GPL-incompatible license. But it fails miserably your reading of the DFSG in two accounts: 1. it restricts the *positioning* of the copyright license; AND 2. you can't erase _every_ _single_ instance of the original title; you can erase N-1 instance of the original title, but not all of them. This is an example of a simple, existing and no-nonsense license, that shows that your stricter interpretation of the DFSG leads to segregating what (IMVHO) is free software [1] as being non-free. This is (at least partially) the logic that makes me conclude that DFSG#10 should not be a grandfathering clause: it would lead to a stricter interpretation of the DFSG, rendering simple free stuff non-DFSG-free. This, in turn, makes me reach my original conclusion about the reading of the DFSG#10 (== "read the DFSG in a way that renders those free"), by excluding the other interpretation. And, all of this without excluding: if DFSG#10 is a grandfathering clause, does it reach GPL#8, too? In other words, can a GPL#8-restricted work be in main? Or even in non-free? I think this alone grants the need for a clarification of the DFSG #10. [1] insert 1000-post-long flamewar about the meaning of the word software without coming to any conclusion here. :-) -- br,M
