Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:13:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >> OK, perhaps the relicensing rule is not non-free; I'm less sure of >> that. > > I don't think it's obvious from a casual reading of the DFSG that such a > requirement is non-free, but perhaps it should be.
I don't think it is obvious from a very through reading of the DFSG that such requirement is non-free. I would judge that it was eiter considered free or never even thought about when the DFSG was written. (probaly the second reason) I don't see any reason for making such requirements non-free. I still got all the freedoms FSF prescribes, I can make modifications and share them. I cannot decide myself under which license my modifications is distributed under but not even GPL allows me to do that. The only reasonable change in this direction I could see for the DFSG is to use some sort of O'Reillys Zeroth Freedom (If I understand him correctly): You should be able to make modifications on you own premisses. No matter how much I like this freedom for my own works I wouldn't like see it in DFSG. It would render GPL and copyleft-licenses in general non-free. Shouldn't we move this to debian-project or debian-legal? -- Når folk spørger mig, om jeg er nørd, bliver jeg altid ilde til mode og svarer lidt undskyldende: "Nej, jeg bruger RedHat". -- Allan Olesen på dk.edb.system.unix