Re: Referencing the DFSG [Re: DRAFT summary of the OPL; feedback requested]
Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Perhaps [Bruce Perens] has a turing-complete compost heap as well?
> Way, way, OT, but it's pretty hard not to have a compost machine that
> does not contain universal turing machines. (Hint: Think bacteria
> and DNA.)
Hrm. There is that. Oh well. That still doesn't mean that the heap
*itself* is a turing machine -- unless you're going to say that an
ecology could qualify....
>> Then what are you talking about? If the section of the DFSG a
>> license fails doesn't capture anything, why include that datum?
> Just because a single section of the DFSG fails to enclose all of the
> problems of a license doesn't mean that a a license does not violate a
> section of the DFSG.
But my point is that it does more than just leave something out. It's
orthogonal. You're saying that knowing the section of the DFSG provides
some, but not all, information about why we decided the license is not
free. I'm saying that it includes almost no information about why the
license is non-free.
That's the greater point, and why I'm continuing to write on the issue
despite having given in on the original question. I want to make it
clear that I, at least, think it would be a Very Bad Thing(tm) to try to
draw any conclusions based on which section of the DFSG various licenses
fail. At best, you'd reach no useful conclusion, at worst you'd be led
to make false assumptions.
But I've probably more than made my position clear by now, so I wont
drag it on.
> I'm not proposing:
> "Violates DFSG 3" (Even though I use this shorthand myself for
> licenses that are trivially non-free.)
I understand that. Personally, I think using that sort of terminology
is a bad practice even as a shorthand, but legislating terminology is a
bad road to start down, so I wont.
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03