On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 11:39:23PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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?
You seem to be contesting the spirit of the DFSG, if only as an exercise.
I think the spirit of DFSG#3 is clearly "must allow all modifications".
> 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.
In most of the cases I can think of, the logic starts becoming complicated
enough that I think "that's stupid; that's why these are guidelines". ("If
DFSG#3 only requires some modifications to be distributable under the same
license, and DFSG#4 requires all modifications except patches to be
distributable but not necessarily under the same license--wait, that's
stupid.")
So, backing up a bit: can you suggest a license clause which would be
allowed under the "some modifications" interpretation of DFSG#3 and
disallowed under "all modifications", while still passing DFSG#4, and
not falling under "rules lawyering" like the above? That is, an example
showing that the different interpretation is meaningful. (I think the
lack of one is why this is somewhat difficult to discuss.)
--
Glenn Maynard
