On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 07:01:10PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > > It seems to me that it's DFSG §4 which deals with the "unmodifiable > > > sections" issue. DFSG §3 simply requires that derived works be > > > redistributable and doesn't address any restrictions on the right to > > > redistribute derived copies (such as GNU's restriction where people > > > who don't distribute their own modificates to GPLed software under > > > GPL compatible terms lose the right to distribute derived works).
More generally, any license that says "if you violate this license, this license is terminated". (Any a nitpick: you probably meant "where people who distribute their modifications of GPLed software, but don't do so under GPL-compatible terms". It's fine to not distribute your own modifications at all.) > There seem to be two ways of reading §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. > > In one reading, the license must allow all modifications and derived > works to be distributed, and §4 is an exception. > > In another reading, the license must allow some modifications and derived > works to be distributed, and §4 is an additional constraint. I don't think this is a useful interpretation. "The only modification which may be distributed is changes in indentation" would pass, or even "the only modification allowed is the null modification". The former is a much more useful interpretation of the guideline. (Of course, it's still a guideline; licenses which forbid the modification of removing the author's name are allowed, for example.) -- Glenn Maynard
