On Wed, 12 May 2004 09:27:49 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> For that matter, the same applies to the currently-posted summary of
> the GPL. At the moment, the summary just states that the GPL passes
> the DFSG because it is explicitly listed in DFSG 10. It would be
> highly preferable to compare the GPL against DFSG 1-9 as if 10 wasn't
> there, as a consistency check: we don't want 10 to act as an exception
> to the rest of the DFSG, only as an example of some licenses that pass
> the rest of the DFSG.
Agreed, fully.
I'm not quite happy with DFSG#10:
* it lists some examples of free licenses, but it doesn't specify which
versions/variants it's talking about (GPL v2 or another? n-clause BSD
with n=? Original or clarified Artistic?)
* it's subject to changes (some issue with one of those licenses might
come up in the future, who knows?)
* it could be misinterpreted as a rule, rather than a clarification by
examples (sort of)
I'd say that sort of information shouldn't belong in the DFSG: IMHO it
would fit much better in informative pages such as
http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
What do you think?
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program
Francesco | Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom!
Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO,
| 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0
Attachment:
pgpvyPbV6_kNo.pgp
Description: PGP signature