Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Anthony DeRobertis <anthony@derobert.net> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> 
> >You're right.  I did not notice that.  That makes the analysis much
> >simpler.  The developers, in their wisdom, essentially changed DFSG
> >#10 to add the GFDL without invariant sections.
> >
> Unfortunately, DFSG 10 reads:
> *
> **Example Licenses*
> The "*GPL <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html>*", "*BSD
> <http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license>*", and "*Artistic
> <http://www.perl.com/pub/a/language/misc/Artistic.html>*" licenses are
> examples of licenses that we consider "free"//.
> 
> and not
> 
> *Special Exceptions*
> As a special exception, we consider he "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic"
> licenses "free".

I always read DFSG 10 as a sanity check on what kinds of restrictions
are allowed.  It would be nice if DFSG 10 could be inferred from DFSG
1-9, but they are simply not specific enough.  For example, there are
certainly people who do not consider the GPL and copyleft free [1],
but DFSG 10 says that kind of restriction is fine.  So this GR merely
expands the range of allowed restrictions -- which sucks.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu

[1] I am putting aside the problems with clause 2c for the moment.