On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:09:34PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > I disagree. The DFSG speaks explicitly of the licenses of the software > being distributed; software that may be illegal to use or distribute for > reasons *other than the license of the copyright holder* has been > regarded as DFSG-compliant, even when it was not possible for us to > distribute the software in question. Compare non-US vs. > non-US/non-free, for example. This is only true when the copyright holder isn't the one enforcing the non-copyright laws to eliminate a piece of software's freedom. > If it is not *safe* for us to distribute a given piece of software > because of the legal climate, that's one thing; but the freeness of > a piece of software is not typically something that's subject to the > vagaries of local law. It's entirely subject to the vagaries of local law. There is no such thing as a "natural" intellectual property right. -- G. Branden Robinson | There's nothing an agnostic can't Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he branden@debian.org | believes in it or not. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman
Attachment:
pgpN02d2YJenz.pgp
Description: PGP signature