> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 10:27:25PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > In another reading, the license must allow some modifications and > > > > derived > > > > works to be distributed, and §4 is an additional constraint. > > > > On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 07:31:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > 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". > > > > That conflicts with §4.
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 11:11:32PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > If #3 is interpreted as you suggest above, I don't see how it's a meaningful > clause at all. Except for "under the same terms as the license of the > original software", #3 becomes a complete subset of #4. Allowing "some > modifications" is a useless no-op. It serves to eliminate licenses which permit no distribution of derived works. I thought someone had said that we might reject programs which violate the spirit of the DFSG even if they seem to comply with the letter? > Of course, the clause headers make the difference between #3 and #4 clear: #3 > talks about Derived Works, and #4 about Integrity of The Author's Source > Code. I think the "must allow *some* derived works" interpretation doesn't > work at all with #4, and as the fundamental requirements for derived works > are laid out in #3, I don't think there's any ambiguity. > > (However, I'm sure there's a lot of ambiguity in my paragraphs above. > Hopefully that made some sense. :) Actually, I don't understand how #4 doesn't work with #3 where #3 is taken as meaning that it must be possible to distribute some derived versions of the copyrighted work. -- Raul
