[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft new DFSG

On Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 02:58:41PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:

> [the DFSG v2]

In general, I like the idea of improving DFSG.  I liked the formatting of
the original better, though -- it's shorter, and gets right to the point.

> (c) Requirements for placing notices
> It must be possible to write such notices so that they are truthful,
> not offensive, and not unreasonably long for the context in which they
All right, it's a Debian version of the Communications Decency Act!  As with
the original CDA in the U.S., you will probably find that "offensive" is way
too vague to enforce.

> (i) Advertising restriction (deprecated)
> This exception is only available if the restriction was imposed no
> later than the 1st of January 1999, and if no modified version of the
> work has been published since then by anyone who could remove the
> restriction.

Interesting idea.  I like the idea of disallowing the obnoxious advertising
clauses.  If this passes, though, people will start trying to kill us :)
Even apache has the advertising clause, and with free software it's quite
hard to tell who "anyone who could remove the restriction" might be.

> (a) If in a particular jurisdiction the distribution, modification or
> use of a work is restricted by law, then the work is not
> DFSG-free in that jurisdiction.

Too vague.  I think some laws prevent "ordinary" software from being used in
life-critical situations in some countries.  It needs to be specially
designed and certified.  Simply because of those laws, does it make my copy
of the Linux kernel not DSFG-free?

Just my two cents...

Have fun,


Reply to: