[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section

Marcus wrote:
> No.  There have been several cases in the past where we include and the FSF
> exclude, and none I am aware of where it is the other way round (although
> the GFDL might become such a case).  

The vim license was listed as a free license on gnu.org while
debian-legal debated it. (A debate I personally thought was worthwhile
and I agree with the arguments brought up by people here.) The old BSD
(obnoxiuous ad clause) is and was listed as free (but
GPL-incompatible), while it's been considered DFSG-nonfree.

I think the reason that the DFSG differs from the FSF (four freedoms)
is that the DFSG tries to be more detailed (and fails - there are
places where it is too vague) about what goes and doesn't go. That's
why I think interpretative guidelines to the guidelines is a seemingly
absurd, but good (and possibly necessary) idea (even though I
constantly keep changing my mind on how harsh or permissive these
guideline guidelines should be).

Sunnanvind (headache and hungry and mad at school. Hope it doesn't
shine through.)

Reply to: