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 <aj@humbug.org.au> <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!''
Attachment:
pgppeastHkzqO.pgp
Description: PGP signature