David Carlisle writes:
> since you added a CC to a debian list,...
I didn't add debian-legal to the headers: that's where this discussion
started. I added you, since I thought you would be interested.
> ...I assume that you know of the following:
As a Debian developer and a charter subscriber to debian-legal I am
intimately familiar with the DFSG.
> There is no point in just ensuring that an `immediate' derivative is
> renamed otherwise it becomes legal to just do two hops and rename over
> the original.
The clause I suggested coupled with a requirement that it be included in
the license on every derivative is sufficient to prevent this.
> I don't really see how your suggested wording is that different from the
> current draft,...
My wording does not ask that someone ensure that someone else will never do
something.
My wording also says that the files *must* be renamed. Your wording ("Any
such changed files should be distributed...") could be construed as a
request, not a requirement. 'Should' is not a synonym for 'shall'.
> I am rather against rewording at this stage unless there really is a
> major problem.
I rather suspect that your attorney will want to make quite a few changes.
You *do* intend to have the license reviewed by an attorney, I hope?
> I do hope that Debian (in particular) do acknowledge that this meets the
> DFSG.
That isn't up to me. I just give my (sometimes unwelcome) opinion.
> It was part of the intention while phrasing the licence that those
> guidelines were met.
Oh, I think it probably does, if I either read the clause in contention as
advisory ("...should...") or squint a little and say "I think I know what
he really means by that". I'm not sure that the license does what you want
it to do, though.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
