On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote: > In the case of forced distribution of code back upstream, it results > in a wider range of people being able to take advantages of your > modifications.
So would a license that required you to redistribute any custom modifications to any other unrelated software that you had made available as a condition of distributing modified versions of it. Hopefully you agree the above is clearly non free. In the specific case that you mention, we've used DFSG 5 as a mechanism for rejecting licenses that require distribution of modifications to people outside of the distribution path of binaries made from those modifications. At some point, the abridgement of privacy of the author of the modifications overrides the good to the community of seeing those modifications. The Dissident Test and Desert Island Test provide a framework for thinking about two separate cases where the privacy of the author overrides the good of the community. [In the instance that I mention, I'd argue that the spirit of DFSG 9 applies, even though the letter may not.] Don Armstrong -- A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election. -- Bill Vaughan http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
