[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The issue, as I understand it, comes down to one of two things. As
>Steve phrased it, it would probably fail the Chinese dissident test
>which, while not part of the DFSG, is seen as a useful tool by many
>people on this list.
And while some misguided people think it's useful, not being part of the
DFSG still makes it non-relevant for the purpose of evaluating the
DFSG-freeness of a license.
>The second argument is it fails the much more generic DFSG3 "must
>allow modification" argument. Barring modification of the license and
>copyright statement seems completely uncontroversial for obvious
>reasons. Similarly, there is consensus that barring modification of
>significant pieces of functionality seems to encroach users'
>freedom. The GPL(2)(c) seems OK although there are a number of
>interpretations why that is.
At least as long as the license does not require a specific
implementation, I do not believe that a requirement to mechanically
provide the source code does not "allow modification", I do not find it
different in practice from a similar clause in the GPLv2:
If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:
Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands you use may
be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be
mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
