> > What it actually says isn't enough for our purposes -- you could say > > it's too tolerant of licensing problems.
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:59:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > OK. I would interpret it as meaning "must allow most modifications and > derived works". > > > Unfortunately, the way that > > we express how it's interpreted is also inadequate -- what we say we do > > is actually less tolerant than what we actually implement. > > What we say we do is something like this: > > * prohibit most substantive restrictions on the content of derived works > * allow restrictions which appear not to be substantive > * allow requirements which prohibit things which would be illegal even if > the original work were in the public domain > * allow requirements that certain things accompany the distribution of the > derived work, but not (in general) requirements that those things be *in* > the derived work. > * allow requirements that certain accurate legal notices be present in the > derived work, provided that they don't substantively obstruct the ability > to make the derived work serve whatever purpose you want > * allow requirements that certain attributions be present in the derived > work, provided that they don't substantively obstruct the ability to make > the derived work serve whatever purpose you want > > Does that sound reasonable? That seems like very good coverage of this issue. Do we say this somewhere? [I've seen other people say things which would contradict these points, and would like to have something to refer to in the future.] Thanks, -- Raul
