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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Raul Miller wrote:

>> > Given that "arbitrary functional modifications" would include illegal
>> > activities
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:59:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> It does. A license that tries to incorporate "you must follow the law"
>> clauses is non-free. That is a longstanding and clear consesnsus on d-l.
> That's good as far as it goes.
> However, that doesn't go very far when dealing with issues of
> interoperation and creation of derived works.
>> > I don't think that "arbitrary functional modifications" is a very
>> > accurate representation of what the DFSG is really trying to allow for.
>> I think you're badly wrong here.
> 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?

If it explicitly prohibited that, yes, that would be a non-free license. 
Thankfully, it doesn't.

> 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?

Because it's about whether it's free software or not.

Fine point: it's not the "free software community" which is the priority;
it's "free software".  Releasing your software under a non-free license
might conceivably help the "free software community", but does not help the
priority of "free software".

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Reply to: