Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> > The list is irrelevant as the applicability of the Debian Free
> > _Software_ guidelines to graphical images is even more dubious than
> > its applicability to documentation.
The number of Debian Developers that care so little about freedom for
anything not a program is extremely discouraging.
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 03:08:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> When originally written, it was intented that the DFSG apply to the
> entire content of main.[1] We have (to my knowledge) consistently
> interpreted it this way.
Of course, it seems everyone has their pet non-free that they'd like to
be an exception, be they logos, "snippets", manifestos or Netscape, which
is a strong reason to reject them all and avoid that slope.
> > I am closing this bug again for the same reason I closed it
> > initially. Like treating the bubonic plague by giving the victim a
> > hanky, you are trying to cure a minor symptom instead of the cause.
> > The logo license is ambiguous.
>
> That might be true, but it's ambiguity doesn't change it's free or
> non-freeness.
It might. A license may be non-free because it is too unclear to be
unambiguously interpreted as free. The unclarified Artistic license
should probably fall in this category (ignoring "grandfather clause"
interpretations of DFSG#10, which is really just an escape hatch to
avoid having to deal with problems in those licenses).
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: