On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 13:08:39 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:41:24AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > DFSG 3 was intended to forbid licensors from placing themselves in a > > > specially advantaged position. If not, why doesn't DSFG 3 simply say: > > > > > > The license must allow modifications and derived works. > > > > > > ...hmm? > > > > Perhaps DFSG 3 is looking at it from the point of view of the receiver > > of the modified work rather than the modifer: A creates a QPL work, B > > modifies it and gives the modified version to C. Then C gets the > > modified work under the same licence as the original work was > > distributed. However, if you really want to know how DFSG 3 was > > intended then you must talk to the people who wrote it. > > To be honest, I'm less interested in that than in what it is we think it > means today.
You don't seem to be very consistent on this point. You yourself used Bruce's clarification that he intended the DFSG to be applied to everything on the Debian CDs to back up your own interpretation[1] and suggested seeking his counsel regarding the meaning of the (now defunct) "We won't object to commercial software that is intended to run on Debian systems" clause[2]. What brought about this change of heart? [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/08/msg00017.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2000/06/msg00299.html -- Andrew Saunders
