Subject: Re: "open source" -- new term for libre software
From: kragen@pobox.com (Kragen)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:47:58 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> For example, the DFSG only requires that the software be freely 
> redistributable "as a component of an aggregate software distribution 
> containing programs from several different sources."  So, one can restrict
> or even completely forbid the distribution of a particular software
> component by itself.  In the age of CDROM and DVD, this may not seem
> very important, but it can be significant for software that is
> designed to occupy close to all of the storage medium and is only
> useful that way, such as boot ROM's or game cartridges.

This sounds like a mistake.  Is it?

> That is, you do not necessarily have the legal right to comingle any two 
> works that pass DFSG to produce a derivative work, since it is possible to 
> have two copying conditions that pass DFSG but that are mutually exclusive.

Yes.  For example, the BSD license and the GPL.  I think that excluding
either of these two would be a bad idea.

> For example, DFSG allows a requirement that source code only be
> distributed as the official version plus separate diffs.  

Maybe this is intended to allow the Perl Artistic License.

Kragen