Re: Proposal for clarification of DFSG.1
Scripsit Roland Stigge <stigge@debian.org>
> I would really like to have a consensus about this issue until the sarge
> release for being sure about this when checking licenses.
The consensus is long-standing and unambiguous. I do not remember
seing it seriously challenged in the 5+ years I have been following
debian-legal.
I also don't think that your proposal (A) is an "interpretation" or
"clarification". It is a *change* - the current language "as a
component of an aggregate software distribution" is hard (but
apparently possible) to misunderstand.
> So DDs, please put a statement to this thread. I actually propose the
> adjustment of the DFSG.
IANyADD, but I don't think the DFSG requires adjustment in this
matter. There are plenty of other things that it might be worthwhile
to change now that the procedure for doing it has been decided, but
this is not IMO one of them.
> Remember that (B) seems to violate DFSG.8!
You're misunderstanding DFGS #8. Saying "you may charge money for this
program if you bundle it with something" is in no way specific to
Debian. Anyone, not just Debian, can do such bundling and get the
right to charge money for the bundle.
--
Henning Makholm "Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte.
Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af
en sådan størrelsesorden og af en karaktér, som berettiger
forestillingerne om den nye hjemme- og husholdningsteknologi."
Reply to: