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

Re: the FSF's definition of Free Software and its value for Debian

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:30:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
> > On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > I think it is counterintuitive to read the "directly or
> > > indirectly" as a restrictive phrasing. On the contrary,
> > > it is meant to be inclusive, pointing out explicitly that the rights
> > > granted can *not* be restricted to *direct* recipients only.
> > I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying "the
> > recipient and all third parties".
> Sure. It just looked (to me; I may be dense) as if your objection was
> material rather than just related to a poor choice of words.

In my opinion, clarity is a virtue.  My objection becomes material with
the first licensor who decides to resolve the license's ambiguous
wording in an unexpected or undesirable manner.

G. Branden Robinson                |    The basic test of freedom is
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    perhaps less in what we are free to
branden@debian.org                 |    do than in what we are free not to
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    do.                  -- Eric Hoffer

Attachment: pgpHkSyA1Hbak.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: