Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> You are ignoring the *substance* of DFSG and focusing on its literal
> wording.
You have no argument why the literal meaning differs from the
substance of #3. You can't, because it doesn't. Go read the
rationale for #3.
> > No. A license may treat different catagories of people differently so
> > long as each category's freedoms fit under the DFSG. For example,
> > this license abides by the DFSG: "This software is licensed under the
> > GPL and the BSD licenses. If you are an educational institution, you
> > may abide solely by the terms of the BSD license. Everyone else must
> > abide by the GPL."
> >
> > It would be ridiculous to say that it didn't.
>
> Right,
Okay, good. So, we have established and agreed that a license doesn't
discriminate under the DFSG even if it treats different parties
differently SO LONG as all the treatments comply with the DFSG.
> but the restriction that it adds for the other group (a
> requirement of public publication) is one that we have *never*
> recognized as DFSG-free.
I know, and you can't point to anything in the DFSG that prohibits
it. You just *know* it to be true, as an article of faith. So why
point to the DFSG? Why say DFSG-free when what you really mean --
what the real test is -- is debian-legal-free.
--
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | A government does enough
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | wrong to offset what it
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | does right. Better that
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | it should do less.
Reply to: