Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think I understand the "Chinese dissident" example, and it's > actually illuminating, but as Russ points out, not at all captured > in the DFSG. If it's important to the Debian community, it should > probably be captured there.
The DFSG is an internal guide, and a statement to our users; it's not really a statement to software purveyors, telling them the minimal requirements of a license. Generally, it's a Debian *developer* that wants to include a package, and the developer asks debian-legal "is this license OK", and after discussion (sometimes very brief), if there are problems, the developer starts talking with the purveyor. This system works well. Where it works poorly is when purveyors start telling us "please distribute this", and then some get upset if we say "your license doesn't meet our tests". Think of it as a negotiation. In any case, note that your license discriminates between modified and unmodified versions, requiring public notice of the distribution of a modified version, but not distribution of an unmodified version. It is this which contradicts the DFSG, and it is this which underlies the Chinese Dissident example. Thomas
