Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4

[Milan Zamazal <pdm@debian.org>]

>>>>> "JB" == Jules Bean <jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk> writes:

    JB> --On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 8:03 am -0600 john@dhh.gt.org wrote:
    >> Milan Zamazal writes:
    >> 
    >>> This makes SWI Prolog non-free because of one its licensing
    >>> clause:
    >>
    >>> 6.  If you base research on SWI-Prolog and publish on this
    >>> research, you must include appropriate acknowledgements and
    >>> references to SWI-Prolog in your publication.
    >>  IMHO that is a restriction on use and fails the present DFSG.
    >> It is also so vague as to be impossible to comply with.

      [...]

    JB> Also, it is clearly routine academic behaviour to do so.

Yes.

    JB> However, it could be construed to fail the current DFSG.  Maybe
    JB> we should exempt this (it doesn't impinge on the freeness of the
    JB> software, as a piece of software).

When I was going to move SWI Prolog from non-free to main, I asked about
its license on debian-devel and the conclusion was it's DFSG free.

What I'd like to point is that with DFS law we will never cover all the
unusual cases, we will discuss law problems and will changing the law
over and over (probably by many voting procedures, which is the only
significant difference against current state).  I simply don't think it
is a good idea to define free software by exact law, guidelines are more
better IMHO, since they express spirit rather than stating some border
defined by some arbitrary wording.

It isn't important to me whether the second paragraph of the point 14.d
of XYZ license is in full compliance with the point 1.2.3.4 of DFSL.
It's important to me, whether I have got freedom to use XYZ or not (yes,
maybe I'm too big idealist).

    JB> P.S. Yes, it should be on -legal.

Yes, the SWI Prolog discussion belongs there, but please CC me, since
I'm not subscribed there (unfortunately I have no capacity to read *all*
the licensing flamewars).

Milan Zamazal