I agree with the content of this proposal. I found it hard to read and understand, however. I'm still thinking of ways to change the wording. At least I suggest to change "A copyright holder is permitted to withhold permission to..." to "A license need not grant permission to...". This way it talks about licenses just like the DFSG does, and it has fewer inversions of meaning.
I also wonder about the last sentence: > Permission must be > granted to include or exclude the text of the license in alternative > formats or duplicate copies, as long as at least one copy of each > applicable license text accompanies the work as part of the Debian > GNU/Linux Distribution. What does this mean in practice? I know of no license that explicitly grants or withholds such permission. I would also support a variant that allows some non-modifiable text, as long as it is [insert definition of non-technical], and as long as it can be removed. That way, we can distribute editorial text (such as the GNU Manifesto) if we want to, but it doesn't impact the freeness of the work it accompanies. -- Richard Braakman Will write free software for money. See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
