[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?

I will try again, before going home.

@ 27/04/2004 18:03 : wrote Milan Zamazal :


"HM" == Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> writes:
HM> man, have you *read* the thing? 
Yes.

   HM> Ok, I'll try to summarize the summary :-) ::

I asked for a particular DFSG term which is violated and explanation of
the violation.
If you accompanied a similar thread in -legal, one month ago, you would see that it's not always possible to point an DFSG section, but sometimes you have to refer to the DFSG FAQ at 

http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html

Especially Question 8. That said,


   HM> Section 2 (VERBATIM COPYING):
   HM>   1. is not restricted to distribution (non-free for a lot of
   HM> reasons discussed in other recent threads here in -legal, the
   HM> QPL one)
USofA copyright law acts only on redistribution of software, not its use; any attempt to act on its use by a license is normally considered non-DFSG-free-ness by debian-legal. A Free Software license should not attempt to restrict what the user is already permitted to do within copyright law; it can only grant additional rights, even if under some conditions. 


I'm sorry, I don't have the necessary resources to read all the long
threads here.  IMO the position statement should be clear and contain
proper explanation of the DFSG violation in its text.

   HM>   2. restricts redistribution (in a DRM'd medium): DFSG#1
DFSG#1: 

    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
medium?
in the "may not restrict" words? This is the most clear case, here. The DFSG says "the license may not restrict"; the license restricts (saying you can't put in a DRM'd medium), so the license is not DFSG-free. 


   HM>   3. outlaws even chmod -r in a normal unix fs

You probably refer to "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or
control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or
distribute.".  IANAL, so I don't know whether this applies to `chmod -R'
and similar cases (e.g. `chmod -R' *may* actually mean you simply stop
distributing the file and not that you obstruct or control its reading).
I miss explanation here.
"chmod -R" is d different from "chmod -r", you know? but you used the right meaning... 
I'll explain (as in the Filadelphia movie, as if you was a 4yo):
I made a copy. It's not my copyright, is other person. If I do "chmod -r", it's a technical measure that obstructs others from further copying my copy. Hence, the affirmation above. 


   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.
the G in DFSG is for "guidelines"; they are not a written-in-stone set of rules... they Guide, not Rule. You really should read the DFSG FAQ before doing this. Forced distribution of the source is also considered by debian-legal non-freeness. 


   HM> Apply similarities with the Desert Island test.

I don't know what Desert Island test is.

It's in the letter (a.) of the question 8 of the FAQ.


   HM> And, of course Invariant Sections; which is not of interest in
   HM> the case, because it seems that everybody _knows_ why those are
   HM> non-DFSG-free.

And additionally it's not of interest in the case, since I've explicitly
said I ask about cases without Invariant Sections.

Yes.


Please note I understand and agree there are some problems with GFDL.
What I do not understand is, how and why DFSG is violated.  It's not any
better after reading your answers. :-|
As I said before, at least one case is absolutely, crystal clear as per the DFSG: the DRM restriction is absolutely forbidden by the DFSG#1, that states: " 

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 GFDL clearly restricts redistribution so it can't use, p. ex., a DRM'd SmardMediaCard as de medium. 


Regards,

Milan Zamazal


Hope To Help,

--
best regards, Massa
Reply to: