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

Re: Should the ASP loophole be fixed? (Re: The Affero license)



On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:04:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:47:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > 1. requiring that modified source be distributed as patches+original
> > > (so, no public CVS, since cvs co gives fully-merged source).  
> > We have a general consensus that this was a hoop we should not have
> > permitted. 
> 
> No, we do not.
> 
> It's something that upstream authors should not require, but it does not
> make something non-free. Bad != Non-free.

Well, let me put myself on record as being in the "patch clause was a
hoop we should not have permitted" camp.

And I do not think that my position on this issues makes me some sort of
"Bad == Non-free" superficialist reasoner; indeed, I resent any such
implication as a hasty conclusion fallacy.  For that accusation to be
warranted, one must demonstrate that I (or anyone else who shares my
opinion on this issue) actually draw an equivalency between "Bad" and
"Non-free" by advocating in *every case* that bad actions permitted (or
mandated) by a software license be forbidden by the DFSG (or our
interpretation of it.)  In any event, I've already public stated my
belief in a position incompatible with this trivialization[1].

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200209/msg00069.html

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |      "I came, I saw, she conquered."
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      The original Latin seems to have
branden@debian.org                 |      been garbled.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |      -- Robert Heinlein

Attachment: pgpL5nZT5GkFY.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: