> 1. The software may be redistributed by anyone. The license for the > software must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow > them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the > original software. If the license restricts a source file from being > distributed in modified form, it must allow "patch files" to be > distributed with the source for the explicit purpose of modifying it > at build time. The license may require derived works to carry a > different name than the original software.
We need to be able to distribute modified files rather than originals plus patches in some situations. In particular, some packages have files that are in the source and are copied to the .deb files during package build. We need to be able to distribute `our' version of these files, even though they may be binary. I'd suggest replacing that sentence and the next with The license must not restrict parts of the software from being distributed in modified form, except perhaps by requiring that the modifed versions use a different filename or be that the modified versions not be distributed under the same name as the original. In particular, I don't think that software is free if I can't make a derived work which is substantially different from the original, for example to make bugfixes and enhancements. I think that restrictions intended to prevent someone other than the author from `forking' the software make the software non-free. > 5. The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in > source as well as binary form. You mean ... in both binary and source form. `Source' is the preferred form for making modifications to the software. Ian. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .