Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
Milan Zamazal wrote:
"HM" == Humberto Massa <email@example.com> writes:
HM> 2. restricts redistribution (in a DRM'd medium): 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
Why does this state the license must permit distribution on a DRM
Surely it's implicit in 'may not restrict any party' that the licensed
work must be distributable in any form the distributor chooses? As it
stands, GFDL works cannot be distributed at all on DRM media and
therefore if the distributor puts (for example) paragraphs from a GFDL
manual in spoken form on a CSS, Region-coded DVD, he is restricted from
distributing this DVD, which is an aggregate software distribution
containing programs from several different sources (If you take
documentation to be software, which AFAIK, Debian does).
Said example DVD is non-distributable (thus breaks DFSG #1) because of
clause 2 of the GFDL, thus clause 2 of the GFDL can in some situations
break DFSG #1, thus GFDL is in some situations non-free.
To be Free, a license must not be non-free in any situation, thus GFDL
is not Free.