Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would it be a solution to add clauses that if someone for some occult > reason does not want to send us that simple email they have to > distribute their modification as patches? That would at least make > being villaneous more difficult than playing fair.
I just got a possibly better idea: how about something along the lines of (informal language here, to be made more explicit if it works): a) you can distribute your modified version under this licence if you send us a patch for your modification. b) if you do not want to send us patches you may distribute your modified version under GPL, in which case this licence does not cover your modified version or its descendants. I think the GPL is inconvenient enough for our product to cancel the competitive advantage of malicious forking. On the other hand, a licence that any user can, at any time, opt to replace by GPL would be considered DFSG-free, yesno? The question is whether Debian would distribute it under the original licence at all, then. Or more precisely: would Debian policy *allow* a Debian developer to choose to put the original licence in /usr/doc/foobar/copyright and then send that silly email upstream when and if she has any changes? -- Henning Makholm http://www.diku.dk/students/makholm
