Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think b) is only non-free if I'm required to grant freedoms to one or > the other group that I wasn't granted myself, such that I'm required to > redistribute derived works under different terms than those I received > myself; DSFG#3.
I'm still not sure that this is what DFSG 3 was /intended/ to say, even though it looks like that's what it does say. At a guess, I'd say that it was there to prevent a situation where DFSG 3 effectively had to contain the entirity of the rest of the DFSG again. The current phrasing means that you never end up in a situation where the recipient is unable to provide the set of freedoms that'd we'd describe as necessary. On the other hand, the current phrasing has weird corner cases. A hyopthetical license that said "This code is under a BSD-style license. If you downloaded it via FTP, remove this license and attach the GNU GPL version 2 or higher" probably /ought/ to be free, since there's never a situation where it's not at least the GPL. But DFSG 3 appears to prevent it. I don't think that's what it was intended to do, but the only person who knows is Bruce. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
