Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[modifications-must-be-publicized clause]
> If a particular technology or delivery timeframe is required, that hurts
> people in countries without cheap implementations of that technology or
> where that timeframe is a hardship.
> This one might actually be relaxed enough to be ok.
I don't think any amount of relaxation will make such a clause ok. It
simply should be allowed to make private modifications and try to keep
them secret. For example, the modifications needed to make some
hypothetical piece of software work in a certain industial or
commercial process might disclose trade secrets.
As for DFSG chapter and verse I can only refer to point 3:
| The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
| allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license
| of the original software.
.. so as long as the licence does not say that "if you distribute
to anyone you must also send a copy to me" about unmodified versions
it is not allowed to say it about modified ones.
And: saying that about unmodified versions is clearly unacceptable
in itself - for Debian CD vendors it would come preciously close to
violating the "free redistribution" requirement.
(Public apologies to Raul for sending the reply as a private email at
first. These bl**dy lists that do not insert Reply-To: headers need
excessive amounts of manual trimming of the To: lines. Sometimes it
goes wrong. Sorry.)
--
Henning Makholm "These are a nasty breed. They sting
you without waiting to be insulted first."
