https://developers.slashdot.org/story/22/07/17/0110250/gcc-rust-approved-by-steering-committee-beta-likely-next-april
and now it becomes Unlawful for Debian to distribute gcc with patches,
as well [without the explicit consent of the Mozilla Foundation, an action
which is in direct violation of DFSG]
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 3:38 PM lkcl <luke.leigh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> the alternative is to work with the Mozilla Foundation to rewrite their
> Trademark License.
>
> the *intent* is clear, they do not trust Licensees (distributors) to "damage"
> the rust API, which is perfectly reasonable.
>
> therefore, why don't they just say that?
>
> "if a distributor performs source code modifications to a
> published revision that cause security holes, cause API or
> language incompatibilities or cause other end-user
> complaints, then this a Trademark Violation"
>
> something along these lines is waaay more sensible than pissing about trying
> to completely unreasonably "lock down" the source code.
this appears to have been added recently (or i missed it):
Distributing a modified version of the Rust programming language
or the Cargo package manager, provided that the modifications are
limited to:
* porting the software to a different architecture
* fixing local paths
* adding patches that have been released upstream
* adding patches that have been reported upstream, provided
* that the patch is removed if it is not accepted upstream
note that this excludes the right to:
* add a patch to add documentation
* add a patch to add a Debian README
* add a patch to add a debian/copyright file
* add a patch to add optimisations
* add a patch to fix serious security vulnerabilities
* convey to others the right to modify [GPL Copyright License requirement]
all of the limitations whilst looking perfectly reasonable are unfortunately
in direct conflict with not only 50% of the DFSG but also in direct violation
of the GPL (under which gcc is released).
l.
