On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:32:09 +0000 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?
IMVHO, it's unfortunate because it lists specific examples of licenses:
this listing does not belong in a set of guidelines, it should *follow*
from the guidelines as a consequence.
If one day we find out an issue with one of the three mentioned licenses
and that issue makes the license non-free, we will be in trouble: what
could we do in such a case? Say the license is free, even if we are
convinced it's not? Say it's non-free, when the DFSG 10 says the
opposite?
I think we should *then* propose a GR to change DFSG 10...
But perhaps it's better if we do that *before* the situations gets
ridiculous... :-(
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpce7lNN2MxM.pgp
Description: PGP signature