John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I missed the "with or without modification" in the header, so thought this > clause was the only thing granting permission for derived works. Had that > been the case, DFSG 3 would be the controlling consideration and fail. > But the permission for derivate works doesn't derive only from this > clause, so I was wrong. However, I AM going to point out that Bushnell's > idea of "added constraint" for the Diablo license could concievably > apply to this clause, and since there's no real division between > acceptable added constraint and unacceptable added constraint, could be > read to void DFSG 4
Um, this actually isn't usually taken to be a problem. The added constraint in the Diable license requires a person to support an OS they might not want to, to do a lot of extra work. The added constraint here is that you can't choose a name which might conflict. Naming rules have generally not been thought to violate free softwareness; TeX is a classic example. Thomas
