Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
> > So, in essence, you think that the DFSG says we must disallow the
> > distribution of gcc if its license prevents you distributing copies which
> > have been functionally modified to better integrate with microsoft's
> > palladium?
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:13:13AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Yes. From DFSG 6:
> > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program
> > in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
> > program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic
> > research.
> ... or for being used to promote Treacherous Computing.
And what about DSFG 10?
Because that's exactly the license gcc is distributed under.
> > And, if that is what you think, perhaps you can explain how this point of
> > view has our users and the free software community as its top priorities?
>
> As I said in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00307.html:
> > Many Free Software authors would be upset at some uses of their
> > software, but that does not mean that Debian should consider a license
> > Free that prohibits use by opressive governments, or by DMCA enforcers
> > (see previous item), or in "Treacherous Computing" architectures, even
> > if Debian agreed that such uses are abhorrent. The FSF themselves say
> > the same thing in their rejection of one such license, which prohibits
> > uses for spyware and human-rights violations:
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html .
>
> If Debian accepts conditions in a license that say you cannot use the
> software for purposes the author finds morally wrong, Debian is then in
> the position of making moral judgements about what conditions it finds
> acceptable. Rather than go down that path, we reject all such conditions.
It seems to me that point of view has some conflict with clause 4 of
the social contract.
--
Raul
Reply to: