Re: after a long thread and a clarification with O'Reilly ...
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:01:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Do they intend this as a "notes" or a "license"?
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > - commercial products that include this document are themselves
> > compliant with the DSFG and don't consist of this document only.
> What's the point of the first statement: "are themselves compliant with
> the DSFG"? The statement doesn't make it any more true.
The statement you quoted is inside a "provided that" clause. So they're
making DFSG compliance a legal requirement, which is a bit problematic
since the DFSG was never intended as a legal document :) I'm sure there
are loads of ways to make a license legally DFSG-compliant while
still being extremely non-free. That in itself is not a problem in
terms of freeness, since it just makes it easier to comply with the license.
But the vagueness might go in the other direction, too. We've already seen
how broadly the "No discrimination against fields of endeavor" clause
can be interpreted. If you make such a commercial product, can you have
any confidence that you have followed the license in a way that will
hold up in court?