Matthew Garrett wrote: > Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: >>I (and not only I) consider DFSG#10 to be a mistake. (From my understanding, >>it was never even intended to be an actual clause of the DFSG.) Listing the >>Artistic license is just as bad. Maybe, at the very least, someone will >>propose a GR to change it to "3-clause BSD" and "clarified Artistic", but >>I'm not holding my breath. > > I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you > suggesting that DFSG 10 is unfortunate because of the specific licenses > it chooses (ie, it seems to endorse licenses that are free but > non-optimal), or because it results in us considering the Artistic and > 4-clause BSD licenses free? I believe he's saying, as many other debian-legal participants have said, that it is unfortunate for DFSG10 to be interpreted as an exception to the rest of the DFSG, rather than as a list of a few examples of licenses which follow the rest of the DFSG. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature