Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> [...]
>> > 1. The version number will be modified as follows:
>> > a. The first 3 components of the version number
>> > (i.e <number>.<number>.<number>) will remain unchanged.
>> > b. A new component will be appended to the version number to
>> > indicate the modification level. The form of this component
>> > is up to the author of the modifications.
>>
>> While DFSG4 does allow licenses that "require derived works to carry a
>> different name or version number from the original software", this seems
>> to go much further than that, since it requires keeping the original
>> version number.
> [...]
>
> I do not consider this to "go much further than that". The intention is
> imho the one DFSG4 tries to carter for. The author wants:
> a) derivatives being detectable as such.
> b) derivatives have to keep out of xinetd's namespace. He wants to
> forbid a derivative being numbered as xinetd 2.3.15, taking away the
> official version number.
He should say that; that's not what the license says. :-P
This puts bizarre restrictions on adaptive reuse. If I create a heavily
modified version of xinetd called "ncn-mud" which is a MUD server, then I
must give it the version number 2.3.15.{something}. Huh?!?
As Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
"If he wants that, the requirement needs to be waived if the work isn't
called 'xinetd'. That'd be DFSG-free."
Simple fix.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
