On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:00:32 +0000 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> In the majority of cases, a license /is/ either free or non-free.
[snipped: although there are exceptions...]
I agree and must say (as I already did in the past) that we should find
a way to keep track of past license analyses.
At least to avoid inconsistencies where the same license is judged
differently[1][2] at distinct times simply because nobody has gone
digging into that old looong thread[3]...
And then to provide a brief description of the issues with a license,
when talking to upstream authors[4]
I still think that well-written summaries are a good way to achieve
these goals.
But maybe we can find a better one...
[1] the same license should be judged consistently in the sense that the
same analysis should apply, unless new facts have been found out
[2] obviously, the fact the same license is judged consistently does not
necessarily mean that different pieces of software (under that license)
will go in the same section: there are many other issues to be
considered (exceptions, additional restrictions, patents, trademarks,
... just to name a few), but the license analysis is usually the first
important step
[3] the GFDL comes to mind: just think about reviewing again all related
threads without having any sort of summary or position statement
(fortunately we have some!)
[4] again the GFDL comes to mind: we have to provide facts and reasoning
when we claim that the GFDL is non-free (most people simply are not able
to believe that a FSF-endorsed and FSF-promoted license has issues... if
you don't even show that you are not the only one that thinks so, you
are considered a heretic...)
--
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:
pgp639_ReZ3dE.pgp
Description: PGP signature