On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:08:25PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > 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. > > [1] the hypothetical front-page requirement -- not the PHP-Nuke author's > requirement, which I reject outright I'd really rather punt on this, as a real court might, and not rule on this until an issue comes before us where it is the only thing standing between a package and Debian main. (I think the legal slang for this is, "the issue is not yet ripe".) Moreover, punting has appeal because it means we don't have to audit everything already in Debian main to see what would be affected by our "ruling". > 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. Like I said, since we *can* punt on this, and nobody's actually *asking* us to resolve this question right now, I'd rather we did. If you really want to discuss this further, it might be good to do so in an independent thread, treating the issue as completely independent of PHPNuke and establishing a fresh foundation and parameters for the discussion. That would make it a little more clear that we're just philosophizing, instead of adjudicating. -- G. Branden Robinson | If you make people think they're Debian GNU/Linux | thinking, they'll love you; but if branden@debian.org | you really make them think, they'll http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hate you.
Attachment:
pgpBGLnzjJzEk.pgp
Description: PGP signature