Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 05:56:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: >>> I also think that this would be good to try and add to the DFSG. I >>> think it would make a position we've tacidly had here on -legal much >>> more clear than it is now. >> >>I think it derives directly from DFSG#1--certainly the spirit, even if >>the letter is debated. I think adding new guidelines that are subsets >>of existing ones would set a very bad precedent, since it implies that >>the DFSG is to be read literally, as a set of rules, instead of a set of >>guidelines. > > I see no way that forced distribution of code to upstream is a subject > that springs directly from DFSG 1. If you disagree, then I'd suggest > that DFSG 1 is modified in order to make it clearer.
OK. Given that you seem to have the reading of DFSG 1 which most narrowly defines fee, and thus most broadly defines free, perhaps you can suggest an alternate phrasing? Anything I can come up with ends up including parts of 9 in 1. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
