On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 08:17:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > It passes the written DFSG. So, you'd accept Thomas's tax return as DFSG-free, then? > 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", I disagree. Every license should be scrutinized. The DFSG itself it just a set of tests we run against a license that enables us to easily dispose of many scenarios in which a license is not a Free Software license. The DFSG was motivated by *practical experience* with licenses that had been encountered in the wild by 1997. > and expect people who want to read between the lines and add their pet > "tests" to be the ones doing the justifying. Why the derogatory tone towards people who develop tests to measure a software license against the abstract notion of "freedom"? The DFSG itself is just such a set of "pet tests", which happen to be primarily Bruce Perens's. -- G. Branden Robinson | The last Christian died on the Debian GNU/Linux | cross. branden@debian.org | -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpU88WmNGVKT.pgp
Description: PGP signature