Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
On Wed, 12 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
AD>Did you bother to read the Social Contract, the document we're talking
AD>about? It's one of Debian's most important documents, and its second
AD>half is one of Debian's many significant contributions to the open
AD>source/free software community. Come to think of it, did you even know
AD>we're talking about the Social Contract?
Of course, you can claim that the very special definition of
"software" should and will be used for the sole purpose of the
interpretation of DFSG and Social Contract. Moreover, you can
scrupulously abide this restriction youself. Moreover, you can
invent a completely unique language solely for the interpretation of
DFSG and Social Contract, and distribute a copy of dictionary along
these documents.
But all this does not help you to restrict other peoples to
not use this defintion outside the scope of DFSG. And it is very
probable that people will use this definftion in any context, even
very harmful. So, you encourage, intentionaly or not, the harmful
for users interpretation of copyright. This harm (_real_ harm,
there are plenty of cases when propietary content vendors use the
'everything digital is software' argument) for freedom do not
overweighted by purely speculative benefits you proclaim. So, there
are the "Words to Avoid".
AD>How Debian choses to apply its principals of freedom and to what works
AD>it choses to apply them has NO RELATION to what will land you in jail,
AD>NO RELATION to what is legal
You can not ignore the existence of a laws even if you will
try twice as hard.
After all, copyright laws is the only reason for existence
of GPL, DFSG, Debian Social Contract and many others tricky and
complicated devices for achieving some degree of freedom.
AD>Quite frankly, hope you are right, and our decision leads you
AD>strait to jail.
I see.
Reply to: