Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes
Russell Nelson <email@example.com> writes:
> 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.
The *substance* of #3 is to preserve the right to make changes such as
suit the *changer*.
Under your interpretation, I could have a license which prohibits "any
change of the software which would allow it to play Beethoven"!
> > 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.
Because debian-legal-free is a particular reading of the DFSG. It is,
indeed, the authoritative(*) reading of the DFSG, and we are not
insensitive to the point behind the DFSG. We are declaring, in fact,
what the DFSG means. It's rather like what a court does when
interpreting a statute or a constitution.
(*): With the proviso that debian-legal is not the last word within
Debian; the FTP masters, the Project Leader, and the developers at
large have considerable authority too. Debian-legal has authority in
that those other groups rely on our advice.