Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:03:32PM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote:
> The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
> selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
> software distribution containing programs from several different
> sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for
> such sale.
> Why does this state the license must permit distribution on a DRM
Not permitting distribution on a DRM medium restricts "selling or giving
away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution
containing programs from several different sources".
It seems straightforward to me; I can't take the program, package it
with something else (forming an aggregate software distribution), put it
on a DRM medium and sell it, due to a license restriction.
> HM> Section 3 (Copying in quantity):
> HM> Forces to distribute transparent (source) along with the
> HM> opaque (binary) form: forced distribution of goes against the
> HM> spirit of the DFSG, altough not its letter.
> So this doesn't violate DFSG.
Violating the spirit of the DFSG *is* violating the DFSG. Please don't insist
that a set of guidelines be read as a set of strict rules. A lot of people
try to do that, and it simply doesn't work.