Re: Fwd: FilterProxy and DFSG-compliancy?
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 11:22:31PM +0100, Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt wrote:
> On Thursday 08 March 2001 23:16, David Starner wrote:
> > > non-free? Or is it totally against the DFSG?
> > What do you mean "totally against the DFSG"? If it's in non-free, it's
> > against the DFSG.
If it's in non-free, it just means that its license disagrees with
at least ONE element of the DFSG, not necessarily all.
> Yep, but I was thinking more in the lines of a shrink-wrap license, as
> somebody suggested. Or rather, this was what I was worried about. This is a
> very special clause, so I wanted to make sure that if I included it in the
> long description, that would be okay. Personally, I'm a little dubious as to
> the legality - anybody can install a package from Debian's main-archive,
> knowing the backgorund of the license somewhat, but this.. well, you'd pretty
> easy break the license by doing an apt-get install filterproxy, and then
> filtering users contents.
> The only solution that really fits is a yes/no question in a preinst script,
> but that's ugly. However, if that's the way, that's the way...
> > whether we approve of the use or not. (IMO, it sucks; if you want to
> > remove pornongraphy from stuff coming into your system, you should
> > be able to, and your kids or employees can deal.)
> Well, it's not just about removing ads. It can do that, as well, but it'll
> also allow you to use Transfer-Enconding (gzip, et al), de-animate gifs, and
> such. But no relevance to the thread, so I'll just shut up :)
I suppose the obvious question to ask is
have you asked the author(s) for clarification?
Brian Russo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Debian/GNU Linux <email@example.com> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member" <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.lpsg.org