Raul Miller wrote: >> > What it actually says isn't enough for our purposes -- you could say >> > it's too tolerant of licensing problems. > > On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:59:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> OK. I would interpret it as meaning "must allow most modifications and >> derived works". >> >> > Unfortunately, the way that >> > we express how it's interpreted is also inadequate -- what we say we do >> > is actually less tolerant than what we actually implement. >> >> What we say we do is something like this: >> >> * prohibit most substantive restrictions on the content of derived works >> * allow restrictions which appear not to be substantive >> * allow requirements which prohibit things which would be illegal even if >> the original work were in the public domain >> * allow requirements that certain things accompany the distribution of >> the derived work, but not (in general) requirements that those things be >> *in* the derived work. >> * allow requirements that certain accurate legal notices be present in >> the derived work, provided that they don't substantively obstruct the >> ability to make the derived work serve whatever purpose you want >> * allow requirements that certain attributions be present in the derived >> work, provided that they don't substantively obstruct the ability to make >> the derived work serve whatever purpose you want >> >> Does that sound reasonable? > > That seems like very good coverage of this issue. > > Do we say this somewhere? [I've seen other people say things which would > contradict these points, and would like to have something to refer to > in the future.]
Huh. Thinking about it, we don't. :-/ Thanks very much for pointing that out, Raul. Um, whoever did the debian-legal web page (since my memory is terrible), would you consider putting this summary on a page linked to it? I release all copyright interests in that summary to the public domain, so as to clear up any potential problems there. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.