On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 02:44:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > 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.
> Actually, I remain convinced that a forced distribution obligation
> does *not* satisfy the DFSG, because it is a form of discrimination.
Good for you?
> You have articulated a difference between "cannot" and "don't want
> to", but as I think I showed, that difference doesn't bear up in this
> case.
You haven't made any arguments that don't apply equally well to the GPL
as compared to the BSD.
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:
pgpQCevZsY_7K.pgp
Description: PGP signature