Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >> Oh, come on. Any argument that implies that we only consider the GPL
> >> free because we explicitly say it is is insane.
> >
> > I am hardly the first person to bring this up [1] [2]. This comment
> > from Raul Miller is particularly illuminating [3]
>
> I'm aware of that. They're all insane, too.
At least we understand your sanity standard now ;)
> > As I remember it, DFSG#10 was specifically added to the DFSG because
> > some people were saying that there were strict interpretations of
> > the DFSG which could cause the GPL to fail, while others (including
> > the author) were dismissing this as stupid. [In part, because they
> > are "guidelines".]
>
> Raul remembers incorrectly. Anyone with access to the debian-private
> archives is free to check this.
<rant> Secret deliberations. Bah. This is why having almost any
discussion on debian-private is a bad thing. </rant>
> The addition of the list of licenses was a direct result of Ray
> Dassen suggesting that a list of licenses we considered free be
> added. I can find no suggestion that the GPL would otherwise be
> considered non-free.
Raul provided links to statements that the Artistic license is not
free.
> > Raul provided further details later [4].
>
> The vast majority of DFSG-related discussion (for better or for worse)
> occured on debian-private. Without checking that, large quantities of
> historical context are lost (though, to be fair, even /with/ checking
> debian-private there's large parts of context that are missing. The
> reason for DFSG 3 being changed from "You must have these freedoms" to
> "The recipient must be able to relicense under the same conditions" is
> never explained - Bruce is presumably the only person who knows.
>
> >> Without considering the GPL free, we have nothing.
> >
> > No one is calling the GPL non-free.
>
> People are suggesting that copyleft licenses are only free because of
> DFSG 10.
My position is that there is a clear reading of the DFSG that keeps
the GPL out. However, if you interpret the word "fee" in a strange
way, then you can keep the GPL in. DFSG #10 forces that
interpretation. So other copyleft licenses are also ok. However,
that kind of munging is a very different beast from what would be
required to make QPL 3b ok.
> That's a hideous fudge.
Don't look at me. I didn't write the DFSG.
> Are you honestly suggesting that it is the intention of the DFSG to
> draw the line of freedom in such a way that the GPL falls outside
> it, and that the GPL is only accepted for pragmatic reasons?
I would say that the DFSG uses imprecise language. DFSG #10 enforces
a particular interpretation of the language. That is, DFSG #1 does
not really mean _no_ fee, just not certain types of fees.
> >> Interpreting the DFSG in such a way that we can only ship a kernel
> >> and basic userland because the GPL is explicitly listed suggests
> >> that the interpretation is incorrect.
> >
> > This point is actually controversial. I am sure that many people
> > would like DFSG #10 to be a noop, but it isn't obviously true. In any
> > case, whether or not DFSG #10 is a noop has little practical effect.
>
> This point was not controversial at the point where the social contract
> was written and voted on. Any controversy is purely down to people's
> interpretations of the DFSG changing.
Then why was there so much discussion over the Artistic license?
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: