On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 09:51:09AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:28:25AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > >> Which we have always allowed in software, even. It falls under the > >> "publish it with another name". > > > the requirement to publish in a specific manner is an additional > > restriction. Granted there are software licenses like that, but are > > they DFSG free ? > > Integrity of The Author's Source Code > > The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in > modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch > files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program > at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of > software built from modified source code. The license may require > derived works to carry a different name or version number from the > original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian Project > encourages all authors to not restrict any files, source or binary, > from being modified.)
Russ, Thanks, but I'm thinking more of the kinds of license that says you *have* to publish your changes and in a specific venue. seems like a close comparison with what has been said here about RFCs. Seems to me that by the time I can't share my patch with my friend directly, but *only* post it to the vendor, it is not free software, and it sounds like this is the situation with RFCs. Regards, Paddy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
