Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org> >> Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes: >>> Therefore my proposal is to narrow the licensor's-intent principle to >>> clauses of the general kind that are problematic in the GFDL. The >>> description in point (a) above is my best attempt to define such a >>> "general kind" of restrictions without being too much a GFDL-specific >>> exemption. > >> I think your suggestion is the best chance at making sense of the GR >> that I've seen so far, but I would make one change: it *should* in fact >> be applicable only to the GFDL. > > Doing so would mean that we'd need to have a separate GR for each > problematic license we encounter. We have to try to extract some > general principles from it, or everything becomes a farce. I agree with your premise, but not your conclusion. The GR did not specify any general principles. If you'd like to advocate some general principles on their own merits, that's fine; don't attribute them to the project as a whole, or attempt to guess the "intent" of a voting body with likely many individual intents. I don't believe it's a farce to take the approach of interpreting the DFSG in a reasonable manner, and require a GR if the project wants to say "Regardless of any license reasoning or possible issues, this license shall be considered free under these circumstances", which is exactly what the GR did. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature