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

Re: The Show So Far



On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 05:21:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sure; it's a plainly stupid idea. No one's seriously advocating it,
> and it doesn't benefit anyone. Please at least come up with examples
> that are vaguely _plausible_.
[...]
> Which is to say: sending your tax return to someone when you change a
> program is not a reasonable thing to do. As such, it's not a reasonable
> thing for a license to require you to do.

So, you'd propose as components of a Debian Free Software Definition
that software be licensed in ways that are not:
  1) stupid; or
  2) unreasonable

My problem with this (implicit) proposal of yours is that it's
practically tautological.  Hardly any Debian Developer is going to
accept as DFSG-free a license that he feels is "stupid" or
"unreasonably", and hardly any licensor is going to use one that he
feels is "stupid" or "unreasonable".

That leaves licensors and the Debian Project with precious little in the
way of objective grounds upon which to evaluate the terms of a license.

I think that, when rejecting a license as non-DFSG-free, we need to be
able to say something more about than "it's stupid" or "it's
unreasonable".

Thus my proposal of adopting the FSF's definition of Free Software, with
an as-yet unarticulated fifth freedom that has something to do with
privacy.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |       The last Christian died on the
Debian GNU/Linux                   |       cross.
branden@debian.org                 |       -- Friedrich Nietzsche
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpfhNXouOtuo.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: