Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tell me if I understand correctly: I (we) have to remove the DFSG > requirement fully not to violate the DFSG point "License Must Not > Contaminate Other Software", right?
Perhaps that's one way to put it. I would also put it by saying that the DFSG must allow free distribution when aggregated with other things, period, whatever character that other thing has, and regardless of how big that other thing is. > Please, tell me why we (as debian) have to care about "aggregation". > Why we can't leave it as it is and leave O'Reilly care about this if > anyone will redistribute a version of the book attaching to it only a > page or a line or a character? We care about freeness. We want to make *sure* that O'Reilly understands the license they are in for, and not just implicitly. > Anyway, a possible rewrite may be as follows: > > <old_version> > - commercial products that include this document are themselves > compliant with the DSFG and don't consist of this document only. > </old_version> > > <new_version> > - commercial products that include this document don't consist of this > document only. > </new_version> That would solve this problem. I would still want to be sure *explicitly* that they understand this includes aggregations that involve adding even a single page. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
