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

Re: EULAs and "manifestations of assent"



References: <87fztea5yq.fsf@fenderson.com>
	<20021204173409.GE4077@doc.ic.ac.uk>
	<20021210232417.GL10858@apocalypse.deadbeast.net>
	<87of7s50u7.fsf@fenderson.com> <20021228062130.GB1870@deadbeast.net>
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 11:03:44AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> > > In my opinion, the DFSG should not be interpreted in a way that
> > > legitimizes any restrictions on use, and this is what the FSF's "freedom
> > > zero" and DFSG 6 is about.
> > 
> > The FSF freedom zero, yes, but I don't see that in DFSG 6.
> 
>   No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> 
>   The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
>   specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
program from
>   being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
> 
> How do you propose to implement use restrictions without actually
> preventing people from using the program to some specific end?

Case in point; the APSL (in it's FSF interpretation), which allows all
specific ends but still has the "publicize all deployed
modifications"-clause (does that imply a use restriction?).

The OSI thinks the APSL is ok, Debian doesn't.

I'm very curious on exactly where they differ, since they both started
with the same document.

What is meant by "field of endeavor" is also up for debate - it could
mean that "doctors/plumbers/hackers/pilots/guitarists/everyone can
execute the source (but not read), so it's not dicrimination against a
field of endeavor in the profession/hobby/occupation-sense".

(See also Sam's message.)

> > I see nothing in the DFSG which prevents the APSL and that's what's
> > prompted this thread (even though I messed up and started talking
> > about EULA-stuff, because I kinda suspect that's in the APSL somewhere
> > - it's very unclear).
> 
> Sure there is.  You can't use it in any given way which might preclude,
> or render unnecessary, your participation in the acceptance ceremony.
> 
> Say, reading the source code instead of executing it.

I'll have to meditate on this. (The more I do, the more infuriated I
grow at the OSI. Thank goddess for Branden and the rest of the Debian
team.)



Reply to: