Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
Scripsit Branden Robinson <email@example.com>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:27:53PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I think your Final Draft does a really good job of defining a class
> > of Cases That Are Unarguably In The Clear.
> I think it does more than that.
> > My uneasiness is with what we to with cases outside of this class.
> > Your proposal does not say anything about what happens there, and
> > seems thereby to imply that "they should be automatically rejected".
> It implies that accepting them would not be consistent with past
What about the past practise of including the Emacs manual in main?
> "In any event, my proposal does not forbid the grandfathering of any
> particular package in main.
Let me just concur with Thomas Bushnell's latest comment to this.
Now the oracle answers:
> 1) Are there any grounds upon which a person could reasonably consider
> the license on the GNU Emacs Manual as non-DFSG-free?
> 2) Is personal dislike for the license on the GNU Emacs Manual the only
> reason someone might consider it non-DFSG-free?
"Personal dislike" is a very fuzzy term which may cover a multitude of
sins. I don't think it can be a *reason* for something failing the
DFSG, however. Some feature of a license can simultaneously be the
cause of dislike and DFSG-nonfreedom, of course.
> 3) Do you feel the Free Software Foundation deserves selective exemption
> from the DFSG?
No. Some of the software they produce may deserve it, though,
independently of its being produced by the FSF.
> 4) Is it possible for a work to be neither, or both, DFSG-free and
> DFSG-unfree at the same time and in the same respect? If so, how?
Sure, in the same way a dog can have yet not have the Buddha nature.
Or perhaps not. You must look within your own soul for that one.
Henning Makholm "Hører I. Kald dem sammen. Så mange som overhovedet
muligt. Jeg siger jer det her er ikke bare stort. Det er
Stortstortstort. Det er allerhelvedes stort. Det er historiEN."