Re: flowc license
Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 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.
Oh, I entirely agree. Clause 10 describes licenses that were considered
free at the time that the DFSG were written, and so the DFSG should be
interpreted in such a way that those licenses are free. It's difficult
to make the argument that people were unaware of the practical issues
with 4-clause BSD when the social contract was drawn up, so anything
that suggests that it should be non-free is redefining our definition of
freedom rather than demonstrating an increased understanding of the
issues involved.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: