Raul Miller answered me privately (but said it was OK to take the
discussion back to the list, which I hereby do):
> On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 08:38:08PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > 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.
> If the terms of the license disallow modification and
> redistribution then that's a problem.
> Mind pointing out how that applies to this case?
1. I think everyone agrees that to pass DFSG #1, the licence must
have terms that allow you to distribute _unmodified_ copies to
your friends _without_ also (attempting to) give an unmodified
copy to the original author, or even telling the author that
you're giving copies to your friends.
2. By the "under the same terms" language in DFSG #3, these terms must
also apply to modifications and derived work. Thus you must be
allowed to distribute _derived works_ to your friend _without_ also
(attempting to) give the derived work to the original author, or
even telling the author that you're distributing derived works.
3. Therefore the following clause in the license we're discussing:
| Any changes should be forwarded to the original author for
| inclusion in a later release of the tools.
fails DFSG #3, because the license does not contain a similar
clause ("under the same terms") for distribution of unmodified
software.
FWIW, I now think that this is a Good Thing, even though I started
my own career on debian-legal some three or four years ago by
passionately defending a license of my own which had such a clause.
--
Henning Makholm "Det må være spændende at bo på
en kugle. Har I nogen sinde besøgt de
egne, hvor folk går rundt med hovedet nedad?"
