Re: Proposal for clarification of DFSG.1

[John Belmonte <jvb@prairienet.org>]

Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 07:47:28PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 05:17:06PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > In short, we accept "you may not sell this program alone" clauses, but
> > > only if they have loopholes big enough to make them completely
> > > ineffective in practice.
> >
> > By the way, I think this phrasing in the DFSG is no accident.  It's
> > designed to let the Artistic License pass.  The AL says "You may not
> > charge a fee for this Package itself" and then goes on to give
> > permission for including it in a larger distribution.
>
> That's not needed anymore thanks to the Clarified Artistic License.
>
> I think we should amend DFSG 1 so that it reads as Roland's (A) (or the
> semantic equivalent).

So do I, but then we'll have to kick the Bitstream Vera fonts out of
main.  I'm guessing that won't be a popular decision, and people will
prefer having pretty fonts on their desktop to having the F in DFSG be
undiluted.

-John



--
http:// if  ile.o g/