On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 02:46:17PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > I believe the change to section 10 of the licence is sufficient to address > the objection to that section in the original summary. Is there consensus > on this? No, the clause hasn't really changed. It's still non-free for all the same reasons. > I further believe the objection to item #5 in the original summary > is spurious. As admitted in the summary, the DFSG does not prohibit this. It admits no such thing. The DFSG does not explicitly prohibit a whole range of things; they're implicitly prohibited as being too obviously non-free to be worth mentioning. They generally fall under clauses 1 and 3, as restrictions on distribution or modification. The DFSG is not a program. The DFSG is not a law. The DFSG is not precise. It is meant to be interpreted by rational people, and that's what happens. You cannot try to treat it as a program in order to exploit loopholes in the wording. > The Dissident test is under question and does not appear to have broad > support within Debian as an additional DFSG guideline, so the objection > to item #9 is irrelevant. Insane. By that argument the GPL is non-free. Just because some lunatic has objected to something in the past does not mean it isn't right. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature