I wrote: > It would go in non-free and thus not be put on CD's. Henning Makholm writes: > I don't follow that - can you back it with references to Debian policy > or the DFSG?
I was referring to this remark of yours: > The question is whether Debian would distribute it under the original > licence at all, then. I meant that it would go in non-free and thus not be put on CD's if you reverted to the original license. Your dual-license scheme would be DFSG-compliant. > Now you're saying that B and (presumably) C would be okay for main, but > that A would have to go in non-free. No, I'm not. We're talking at cross-purposes. I thought you were suggesting reverting top the original license. > Note that the mail-us-your-patch clause only concerns the entity who > actually makes the modification. It has no relevance for e.g. CD > manufactures or mirror site administrators that merely pass (perhaps > modified) copies of the software on whithout adding any modifications of > their own. The DFSG requires that *everyone* be permitted to make modifications, not just the maintainer. Your dual-license scheme would permit that, and is in my opinion DFSG compliant. It would be up to the maintainer to decide whether or not to send you the email. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
