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
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...