On Jul 19, 2004, at 13:40, Branden Robinson wrote:
Provided the additional restriction did not fail the DFSG in and of
itself,
I don't see why such a license necessarily would fail the DFSG. We'd
have
to judge this sort of situation on a case by base basis.
Unless -- we want to assert that all GPL-derived licenses used in
Debian
must be GPL-compatible. [...]
If that's the consensus view of this mailing list, I can go along with
it,
[...]
Since the question is raised, I do not agree with making that assertion
and I do not believe it to be the consensus of this list.
For example, if I were to make a new license, the Really Silly General
Public License, following the procedure in the GPL FAQ, adding this
term:
If the program contains functionality designed to display its own
name to the user then you must cause your modified version to
display a different name unless you sacrifice a pig to Cthulhu.
it'd still be a free (though GPL-incompatible and silly) license. (Free
because DFSG allows a license to require a rename; silly for obvious
reasons)
