[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:
> As I've said before, most recently in a posting to -private, and
> before that in various fora, I think the DFSG has some serious
> problems due to loose wording.  I also strongly dislike the patch
> clause.

I think it's been said...but really bad timing.

However, I have a couple of comments/queries..

> (d) Anyone must be permitted to reverse-engineer it.
I don't think this is necessary (the source code is available).  Conversely
I haven't ever heard of a open source program having this kind of restriction.

> 4. Restrictions due to law
> (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.
> (b) It is still DFSG-free in other jurisdictions, provided that those
> who control (directly or indirectly) the work and the conditions under
> which it is distributed, do not have the power to lift the
> restrictions other than by changing the nature of the work, and
> express a desire that the legal restrictions be lifted.
> (c) In the case of restrictions due to patents, a work can in any case
> not be DFSG-free if those who control the work and the conditions
> under which it is distributed are software patent aggressors.

Is it really up to debian to interpret the law of every single location in the
universe?  IMHO debian should be producing a distribution that satisfies is
DFSG irrelevant of the locations it will be used in.  The interpretation of
the law should only apply at the lowest level when it actually comes to
distributing our works.  I really feel this is not as necessary as it seems.
(Of course I'm not a lawyer, so I may have this all muddled up)




REALITY.SYS corrupted: Reboot universe? (Y/N/Q)   ....Debian GNU/Linux
Reply with subject 'request key' for PGP public key.  KeyID 0xA9E087D5

Reply to: