On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 01:17:12PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Patrice Dumas wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 02:50:50AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>> Any license that mandates a requirement to send all modifications to the >>> original authors is clearly non-free. Academic Free License does not do >>> that. The other licenses you quotes appear to do this. >> In fact in one of the license this is a should and not a must, Karl >> Berry (texlive maintainer) thinks it is right and I agree with him: >> "All modified versions should be reported back to the author." > > If I make private modifications in Free software and don't distribute the > software, I am under no obligation to distribute any changes to anyone. > Maybe this request can be presented outside the license and that's what the > DSFG FAQ suggests > > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html Indeed, but in their examples it is always a must, I think that with a should, it is like a request versus an obligation, and it is right even in the license. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
