Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL "Virulogical" effekt
On 23-Apr-00, 09:57 (CDT), Florian Lohoff <flo@rfc822.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 01:15:29PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> just wanted to discuss the ability to "misinterpret" the DFSG Par. 9
> and possibly working creativly on a change for the terminology
> making it more clear what the intention thereof is. I think i know what
> the intention is - And I am sure i have understood whats written
> there, but someone COULD havily misinterpret this as i have shown.
>
> And i think - "Intention as i have understood" and "Intention
> written down" can be very different as i think i have shown.
>>>DFSG paragraph 10: The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are
>>>examples of licenses that we consider "free".
The intent seems pretty clear to me. We think the GPL is a DFSG
compliant license. Presumably we've read the GPL. Therefore, if one
thinks there is a conflict between the two, perhaps one ought to
consider the idea that one has misinterpeted the words in one or the
other of the documents.
Yes, one can deliberately look for ways to misinterpet the
meanings/intents of licenses and the DFSG. One can even unintentionally
misunderstand those meanings and intents, and ask for clarification. But
when one then refuses to accept that clarification, and continues to
insist that generally accepted understanding of meaning and intent
is wrong, others will get frustrated. The English words "aggregate"
and "derived" and the phrase "along with" have commonly understood
meanings. The DFSG was written by a group of people with considerable
experience in the software field with understandings about how those
words might be applied to software.
Yes, the DFSG could be re-written to explicitly state all (well,
most) of the different possibilities and how they affect freedom. It
would then be 20 pages long, and not very useful. Also, consider the
title: Debian Free Software Guidelines. Guidelines. Not rules or
laws. Guidelines implies some judgement on the part of the people
evaluating a software license.
Florian, I'm not trying to tell you to "shut up", and I apologize if
I come across that way. But continued protests of "well, it *could*
be read this way" against a chorus of "it's not meant to be read that
way, and most people don't have a problem with it" begins to seem like
intentional trolling, just like the periodic posts to gnu.misc.discuss
that the GPL isn't free because it doesn't let people steal other
peoples code and sell it in a proprietary form.
I *will* shut up now.
Regards,
Steve
Reply to: