On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:17:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:54:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Seriously, you're welcome to hate the clause all you like; there are > > people out there who hate BSD licensing and others who hate GPL licensing. > > You do need something stronger than a firm opinion and a lot of repetition > > to declare it non-free, though. > But we can turn this around, and it's just as true. > You're welcome to love, and/or regard as "reasonable", all the crazy > restrictions on modification and distribution you like. But you need > something stronger than a firm opinion and a lot of reptition to delcare > it free. It passes the written DFSG. Not everything that passes the DFSG as written is free -- that's why they're guidelines, not a definition -- but I think it's fair for the null hypothesis to be "satisfies the DFSG as written = free", and expect people who want to read between the lines and add their pet "tests" to be the ones doing the justifying. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature