On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 04:42:48PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote: > none that I can think of right now, what is to say I think you have at > least /some/ good arguments. One doubt: is your reading of the DFSG the > following (seems stricter than mine)? > > 1. the license should not forbid and modifications, with two groups of > exceptions: it can forbid / must forbid / it's forbidden anyway the > "primary" ones (I am lacking a better term -- meaning copyright notices, > license texts, the GPL invariant preamble, is there another one?) and it > can optionally forbid the "secondary" ones: GPL#2a and GPL#2c; if you > can't distribute modified sources, it's imperative that you can > distribute the original tarball+patches and the patched binaries; *OR*
I tend to read it as "can not restrict modification at all, except for legally-required notices (copyright notices, licenses, disclaimers) and those things explicitly listed in DFSG#4". I read DFSG#10 as "the following licenses are accepted, even if they don't meet DFSG#3"; that is, a grandfathering clause. -- Glenn Maynard
