On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 04:08:23PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > I'm not trying to read the DFSG as narrowly as possible. I was merely > observing that I couldn't find a clause of the DFSG that really stated that > what the OP was proposing was non-free. You conveniently cut the parts of > my message that gave some possible DFSG problems, depending on > interpretation, and some practical problems that may be significant, > depending on the licensor's interpretation of the given statement. That's because I was attempting to point out potential problems in your approach, not challenge your findings. I think starting or ending an analysis with "well, I can't find anything that directly contravenes the DFSG" is a risky approach to take. DFSG-conformance is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a work to be Free Software. I didn't mean to give personal offense. -- G. Branden Robinson | One man's "magic" is another man's Debian GNU/Linux | engineering. "Supernatural" is a branden@debian.org | null word. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature