On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:38:53PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free > > software context. They don't care about free software. They don't care > > about distributors/vendors. > > What is DFSG 4 if not a grudging acceptance of this sort of behaviour as > free?
Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified
form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with
the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The
license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified
source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different
name or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise.
The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source
or binary, from being modified.)
The point of DFSG 4, as I understand it, is to permit the licensor to take
certain explicit steps to prevent people from drawing the inference that
the licensor endorses modified versions in any way.
I think if DFSG 4 had intended to grant licensors broad latitude to invent
novel ways of prevent such an inference from being drawn, it would have
been worded differently -- or, at least, the last two sentences would have
been.
In my opinion, DFSG 4 somewhat clumsily lumps together two related but
distinguishable issues -- one is a presentation format for distribution,
the other is a means for the work to identify itself.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Religious bondage shackles and
Debian GNU/Linux | debilitates the mind and unfits it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | for every noble enterprise.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- James Madison
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
