On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:19:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Does anyone believe that this interpretation is sufficiently wrong-headed > > that it should not be considered valid, in spite of statements from the > > copyright holder or a court ruling? > (Parse failure. Restarting.) > Does anyone feel that this interpretation is so-wrong headed that it's > invalid, in spite of statements from the copyright holder or a court > ruling? > We have a responsibility to interpret the DFSG and software licenses as > beast we can. Statements from copyright holders and court rulings can > only be advisory, and should not be binding upon us (of course, court > rulings can be binding upon our actual distribution of software, and > this is something the archive admins have to take into account -- for > instance, there may be perfectly DFSG-freely-licensed DeCSS > implementations, but it could be problematic for the Debian Project to > distribute them in the U.S.). > Valid in what sense? Valid for us, valid for anyone? I need help to > understand your question. Valid, for us. The aim of this question was to determine whether the list thought we should accept this[1] as a valid interpretation of the GPL, as opposed to whether people thought it was non-free. You seem to be saying that it may or may not be valid, but that you consider it non-free. I consider it valid, and can't bring myself to view this as any less free than other 2(c) notices on commandline programs. So long as the GPL is named in the DFSG, it seems disingenuous to permit 2(c)'s invocation in some execution contexts and forbid it in others. I think we're stuck with the whole wart unless we revise the DFSG itself to clarify the GPL grandfathering. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer [1] the hypothetical front-page requirement -- not the PHP-Nuke author's requirement, which I reject outright
Attachment:
pgpNRBRHoAiBz.pgp
Description: PGP signature