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

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: