Re: could you safely rewrite the DFSG requirement?
Scripsit Sven
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 09:36:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > the work when in an aggregation. As long as O'Reilly understands that
> > "aggregation" includes even "trivial" aggregations of a single page,
> > designed purely to allow for the publication for profit (when it would
> > otherwise be prohibited), then I'm happy.
> Well, this may well fgollow the letter of what is written, but in no way the
> spirit of it.
Why not? The letter was put in there quite consciously, I believe.
> > I would rather the DFSG be changed to remove all this "aggregation"
> Yes, that would be better.
Why? It doesn't harm anybody. All it does is to allow in some licenses
that are stupidly written but in practise just as free as anything else.
> I still think that adding trivial stuff to an aggrgation is a
> dishnoest way of bipassing the aggregation requirement, following
> the DFSG to the letter, depending on interpretation of it, but not
> to the spirit of it.
You don't "bypass" any requirement of the DFSG. The text of the DFSG
is in principle irrelevant to somebody who wants to reproduce the
software. The reproduction rules are set forth in the *licence*, and
if the license is stupid enough to think it gains anything by
requiring a trivial aggregation before reproducing, then so be it. No
matter what we do to the DFSG it won't change what the license says.
The question is whether software with such stupid licenses should be
allowed into Debian. I don't se any practical reason why not.
> I am arguing that what you are trying to do is be dishonest and work around a
> part of the DFSG, which as written is not convenient to you, instead of
What is dishonest. The DFSG says very clearly and unambigously that it
is allowed to require aggregation of copies. There is no "working
around" going on here.
> This don't solve the asggregation clause though.
What do you want to have "solved"?
> The real problem is that people on debian-legal are judging as if the DFSG
> is written as they want, not as it is.
Does or does not "as it is" include the phrase "as a component of an
aggregate software distribution containing programs from several
different sources"?
--
Henning Makholm "Han råber og skriger, vakler ud på kørebanen og
ind på fortorvet igen, hæver knytnæven mod en bil,
hilser overmådigt venligt på en mor med barn, bryder ud
i sang og stiller sig til sidst op og pisser i en port."
Reply to: