Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 11:17:21AM +0100, Rico -mc- Gloeckner wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 11:09:02AM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > Huh? The DSFG is about *licenses*. The question whether a *program* is
> > DSFG-free simply makes no sense.
> The Term DSFG-free does not make any sense to me, either.
It means "free as far as the Debian Free Software Guidelines are
concerned". As opposed to whatever other definitions of "free" you
might prefer.
> What i was referring to was Point 5 of the DFSG:
> <http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines>
> | No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> | The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
> | persons.
The license can't discriminate -- the code can do whatever it wants. As
long as the license is DFSG-free, we can remove any discrimination from
the code. Things like this is not what the DFSG is about.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Reply to: