On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 11:50:54PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: Steve> On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:37:14AM +0400, olive wrote: Steve> > If that is what you think, you must first have the DFSG changed *before* Steve> > declaring the license non-free. Steve> Steve> No, I must not do any such thing. And who are you to tell me I Steve> must? Well, because if we all start adding stuf that aren't in the DFSG and say they are binding, this is going to be a tricky day. Steve> > As long as the DFSG is not changed the license remains DFSG-free. Steve> Steve> No. The DFSG are *guidelines*. These guidelines are *interpreted* by Steve> Debian, in the person of the ftp team with debian-legal functioning in an Steve> advisory capacity (... on a good day). There is nothing in the Social Steve> Contract or DFSG that obliges us to distribute software just because the Steve> novel way that the licensors found to screw users is one that the DFSG Steve> doesn't address explicitly. <quote> 1. Debian will remain 100% free We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software Guidelines". *We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to these guidelines*. We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component. </quote> I agree it doesn't say "we promise to distribute each and every piece of software that could fall into the guidelines' reach", but if we don't want to render the emphasized promise pointless, we do have to stick more or less closely to what the DFSG say when we treat things as free/non-free, otherwise we are blatantly misleading people. Interpreting the DFSG is one thing, adding stuff to them is another. -- Yorick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature