On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes: > > 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. I'm not understanding you then, apparently. What would you have us use as a metric to decide whether a license is free or non-free beyond the DFSG, the four freedoms[1] and "common sense"[2]? When a license violates a point of the DFSG or one of the four freedoms, that is reason enough for it to be non-free. We may decide that a license is non-free for other reasons, or that a license conforms to the letter of the DFSG, but fails the spirit, which (I feel) is also appropriate, but that left aside, we are (generally) analyzing the freedom of licenses in the context of these two works. As such, the DFSG and the four freedoms are very much the foundation for our discussions about licenses here. To say that they have no bearing upon why we would consider a license non-free is a statement that I'm frankly having trouble understanding. Don Armstrong 1: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html 2: That being a sensible application of the DFSG and the four freedoms to the license of the work in question. -- Build a fire for a man, an he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. -- Jules Bean http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature