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

Re: [Discussioni] OSD && DFSG convergence

Henning Makholm writes:
 > Scripsit Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
 > > Still, where in the DFSG does it say that you can have 
 > > unlicensed software (even if it's public-domain) in Debian?
 > It says so everywhere: The only thing that DFSG speaks about is what
 > one *can't* have in Debain. Since none of those apply to
 > public-domain software, the latter can be in Debian. Simple, eh?

Foo on that.  The DFSG says "The license must allow modifications and
derived works..."  If it's public domain, there *is* no license.

The DFSG has a problem.  It fails to admit that there is unlicensed
software which belongs in Debian.  Rather than amend it, you're
interpreting its ambiguity to mean what you want.  That's fine, but
what do you do when someone comes along and interprets its ambiguity
to mean what *they* want?  And then they insist that their software
MUST go into Debian.  If you refuse, they will sue you for reliance
(they created this software for this express purpose of putting it
into Debian, relying on the DFSG to mean what it says, not what you
say it says.  You will harm their business if you refuse to go by the
plain meaning of the DFSG).

Maybe this hasn't happened yet.  Maybe Debian isn't popular enough in
the business community for it to happen.  Maybe it will NEVER be
popular enough in that community.  Maybe it would be better to head
them off at the pass and revise the DFSG.

I'm not in any way saying that you must or should adopt the OSD's
changes.  I'm saying that you should fix problems in the DFSG rather
than saying "Well, if you interpret section X to mean that you can't
rely on a GUI, therefore no license can use click-wrap".

 > Another way of saying the same: The DFSG decribes which freedoms users
 > and redistibutors must have in order for the software to be in
 > Debian. Users and redistributors of public-domain software do have all
 > those freedoms.

The DFSG talks about licenses, not freedoms.  If you want it to talk
about freedoms, then it should talk about freedoms.

 > > We can't do that at OSI, so we need the OSD to cover these cases.
 > That's good for you, I suppose. Do you want Debian to do something
 > about that?

Yes.  I want there to be one and only one definition and set of
guidelines.  Why do you want two?  What purpose can be served by
having a difference?

-russ nelson              http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | the government does less,
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | does something right.

Reply to: