On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:32:09PM +0000, 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? Both. They *are* lousy licenses to endorse, and some people *do* try to use it as a trump card to defeat rational analysis of these licenses. Realistically, even if everybody at the time thought they were free according to the DFSG, they might have been *wrong*. Eris knows it happens often enough; accurate license analysis takes discussion on the order of *years*. It only takes one small bug to make a license non-free, and the law is unforgiving of bugs. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature