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

Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes

On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 03:24:20PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Henning Makholm writes:
>  > This denies a user the right to make modifications and distribute the
>  > modified software (with source code) to his neighbour *without* also
>  > distributing it to the public at large.
>  > 
>  > The consensus on debian-legal that this right is a sine qua non for
>  > DFSG-freedom is strong and well established.
> Where does it say this in the DFSG?

Debian has a strong "common law" tradition with regard to the DFSG.
We interpret it in certain ways to protect people's freedoms.
You might say that this discriminates against people that are on
desert islands. Note that vim's license is acceptable even though
that clause is in there because it states that if it is not possible
to contact the maintainer to return modifications then the requirement

>  > which I take to mean that one who accepts the license must effectively
>  > give Apple a royalty-free license to use each an every patent he
>  > controls.
> Where does it say this in the DFSG?

I'm not sure, but it's certainly atrocious. You might want to search the
archives or wait about a day or so for some of the regulars to debate
with you over it.

>  > which mentions stopping *use*. We object to the notion that one needs
>  > to to comply with specific terms simply to use the software (as
>  > opposed to modifying or distributing it).
> Where does it say this in the DFSG?

US copyright law explicitly permits use. We generally do not approve
licenses that attempt to take rights that user already has. If you want
to get technical, forbidding use of such software would be in conflict
with US law, and therefore would discriminate against people in the US.

> My point being that these requirements *should* be in the DFSG, not
> that you shouldn't come to that conclusion.
>  > I seem to remember that there were also originally a
>  > you-must-follow-US-export-laws clause in the license originally
>  > certified by OSI, but that must have been removed since.
> Yup, that was a major screw-up on our part.  It's since been repaired
> by the replacement of it by the license you see now.

That discriminated against people not in the US. If I am not in the US
(which I am), then why should I have to abide by its laws?

Brian M. Carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
 to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
 after all." --Douglas Adams

Attachment: pgpWpjFShRKry.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: