On 5/23/06, Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The program is distributed under a license which permits copying and modification of the source code. However, modified versions are only allowed to be distributed as patch files: as such, the gnuplot licence is not compatible with the GPL, and is not free software (according to FSF, DFSG, and OSI).
Your assessment as to the acceptability of 'patch distribution' restrictions is absolutely incorrect with regard to the DFSG and OSI. If you have authoritative references which you are relying on to back up your assessment, cite them. While this term is most certainly not GPL-compatible, its most certainly DFSG and OSI compatible according to the available DFSG and OSI definition of opensource. Stop trying to equate 'free software' with 'open source software' as you have done in your last sentence above. <quote http://www.debian.org/social_contract> Section: The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) .... 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.) </quote> <quote http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php> Section: The Open Source Definition .... 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. Rationale: Encouraging lots of improvement is a good thing, but users have a right to know who is responsible for the software they are using. Authors and maintainers have reciprocal right to know what they're being asked to support and protect their reputations. Accordingly, an open-source license must guarantee that source be readily available, but may require that it be distributed as pristine base sources plus patches. In this way, "unofficial" changes can be made available but readily distinguished from the base source. </quote> The patch distribution issue is a NON-ISSUE. The most problematic issue with the licensing that started this thread is restrictions on use, 'academic-only' or 'non-commercial' terms are highly restrictive, and make licensing audits a real pain in the ass for those of us who have to deal with it. God forbid such packages showed up as deps for other packages in Extras. If there is a way forward for these sort of restricted use, but modifiable codebases, it will take the form of a dedicated repository downstream of Core and Extras. -jef"killing pointless masturbatory legal arguments one credible citation reference at a time"spaleta -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
