* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070605 21:09]: > So, how about we settle this once and for all? The DFSG is not an > orthogonal basis for a vector space. The world won't end if we add a new > point to it that some folks feel is redundant with what it already says. > If there's a principle that we're generally applying for licenses, let's > just add it to the DFSG so that it's present in clear and unambiguous > language and everyone knows what the project's position as a whole is.
Agreed. > For example, for the "desert island test" and part of the "dissident > test", what about a GR with the following two ballot options: > > The DFSG are hereby amended to add the following additional guideline: > > 10. No Required Contribution of Changes > > The rights attached to the program must not depend on the user > sending their modifications to any third party to whom they have > not distributed the program. > > and: > > It is the position of the Debian Project that the DFSG does not > prohibit a license from requiring local modifications be contributed > back to the license holder or be made publicly available. > Accordingly, software shall not be ineligible for the main archive > solely due to such a license term. I don't agree to either of that :) - I think though the license shouldn't enforce people to *send* back the software, the license may enforce that the changes are available (consider some websoftware that has a license "if you use this software, you must make the software available for download on your webpage, e.g. as a tar ball"). This works even on a dessert island, btw :) (And, BTW, I consider such a change in the licenses to become more important because of Web2.0 and renting software - even GPLed software for Web2.0 doesn't give the users more rights then closed source software, if they cannot get the local changes.) Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
