Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 01:09:43AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The practical problems beyond the DFSG have always been something
> > we commented in, but not a direct freedom problem themselves. The
> > FSF used to do this too - see their criticism of obnoxious
> > advertising clauses - instead of using advertising clauses like now.
>
> Free Software goals exist for real, practical reasons. Practical problems
> *are* freedom problems. [...]
Often. Not all of them are. I think there are some of each sort in FDL.
> > More pragmatically, "DFSG-free" was a stupid label for
> > licences which helped add to the confusion over whether it was the
> > licence or the liberty of the software and users that mattered to us.
>
> The license is--largely[1]--what *determines* the liberty of the software
> and its users. The liberty is the important end result, but it's the
> licenses that get us there; restrictions placed by licenses (or lack of
> licenses) is what obstructs that liberty. "DFSG-free" is not a stupid
> label; it was an effective, useful one.
Not a stupid label in general, but a stupid label for licences. There's
always a UW. Using the DFSG as some sort of licence certification
scheme is a really bad idea and organisations that try to do so should
die messily. Please let's concentrate on the software: it's worth looking
at licences, but software is the thing of interest.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: