Re: Darwin Streaming Server
I understand why people think of this as discrimination, and can accept
that decision (and since its already been packaged, I guess there's no
need for me to package it either), but I do disagree with the
discrimination clause.
The discrimination clause was made to prevent an application for being
"DFSG" free to some people, and not DFSG free to everyone. If that
would be the case, then the DFSG says, this is not really not free. In
this case, we have a different sort of discrimination, not something
that is non-free for some people, but just a more restrictive DFSG free
for some people, therefore that shouldn't remove it from the ranks of th
DFSG free.
Personally, from being around and active during the original discussions
of the DFSG, I think I captured the intent of the discrimination clause
from above, and people who are being pedantic on this license, are doing
the opposite of what they are saying, i.e. they are holding hard and
fast to the DFSG's discrimination clause, when I believe the
discrimination clause was meant to take care of a totally different
case.
[you in below paragraph is no one in praticular]
I can understand to an extent, if you believe the "restrictive" form of
Apple's License is too restrictive, though I'd disagree with you. But I
can't understand why this "discrimination" is a problem (if the
"restrictive" form is not too restrictive for you). Because, if I would
have made a license that is the same as apple's license in its
restrictive form, you would consider it ok (perhaps not an optimal
situation, but DFSG free). If I then decide that this is too
restrictive for a certian class of users, I can then go ahead and lessen
some of those restrictions for that class of people (globaly in my
license). The logic presented here by others basically says, since my
license now discriminates among groups of people, even though no one has
less rights/more restrictions than they had in the originall license,
and some people have have even less restrictions (and perhaps more
rights), and therefore is DFSG non-free.
<sigh>
To me, that not "non-free" software, but as it seems the consesus
disagrees with me, I won't argue it too much.
shaya potter
On Wed, 2001-10-31 at 01:29, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 12:34:56AM -0500, Shaya Potter wrote:
> > case b) you have to always redistribute your changes
> > this is considered DFSG free
>
> Uh, "if you distribute changed binaries, you have to distribute the source
> to those changes" is free; but "if you use, or even compile changed
> binaries, you have to give them to me" generally isn't. Personally,
> I consider that as an unreasonable restriction on use, but at the very
> least it's an unreasonable restriction on private modification.
>
> Also, the DFSG is a set of guidelines, not a set of hard and fast
> rules. Just because you pass a pedantic reading of them, doesn't
> necessarily mean your software will (or should) be considered free. Or,
> at least, that was the consensus a few years ago when there were a couple
> of proposals going around about making the rules more explicit.
>
> Cheers,
> aj
>
> --
> Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
>
> "Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
> C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
> can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
> -- Mike Hoye,
> see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: