Re: is this DFSG?

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org>
> On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 08:56, martin f krafft wrote:
> > [please CC me on replies]
(But Jeff didn't. I'll add Martin to my Cc: list)

> >     "Those whose work is in agreement with [1] may freely use, modify,
> >      or distribute this under the same terms. Those who don't may
> >      not."

> >       1.   http://www.debian.org/social_contract/

> Fails DFSG 6.

Mostly though sloppy writing, I think. If the intention was something
like:

    1. I grant everyone the permission, free of charge, to use, copy
       and/or distribute this work in either original or modified
       form.
    2. However, the rights granted in clause 1 do not extend to a work
       derived from this one if that derived work is subject to valid 
       copyright claims whose licensing terms, when taken as a whole,
       does not meet the DFSG.

it is not self-evidenly non-free. It's still weird and somehow
self-referential, though. In particular, DFSG #3 _in fine_ means that

   The licence is DFSG-free if and only if it is DFSG-free.

We can work our way out of the logical uncertainity by adding a
third clause to bootstrap the freedom:

    3. For the purposes of interpreting clause 2 above, this License
       itself is considered to meet the DFSG.

The net result would be logically meaningful and actually seems to be
somewhat useful. It is, in a sense, a "most permissive viral license"
in that derived works can be relicensed with any other viral license,
such as the (L)GPL (whose virality would be enough to enforce clause
2, so that the original license would not have to be appended), but
cannot be changed to a non-viral license such as BSD-style or "public
domain".

It does allow derivations to be taken to closed-source gratisware.
To avoid that, more precautions are needed, and one would end up
redoing the GPL.

-- 
Henning Makholm                    "What the hedgehog sang is not evidence."