Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
(I've reinserted a portion of the quote that you shouldn't have snipped.)
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:01:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 10:55:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I'm not quite comfortable with this `grandfathering' thing.
> > "if the GPL is not-quite-free, but it's considered free anyway only
> > because it's grandfathered by DFSG#10, why cannot the
> > <put_your_favourite_non-free_license_here> be grandfathered as well?"
> Except, it is free.
> People have been "not comfortable" with it for ages. Most of that
> discomfort has had to do with how difficult it is to turn GPLed software
> into non-free software.
The only serious arguments I've seen (and given) for the GPL failing
DFSG#1-9, as actually applied by d-legal, are the changelog and output spam
requirements. Neither of those are relevant to copyleft at all, so this
statement is false, at least among arguments presented on this list over
the last few years.
Of course, the "not comfortable" in the message you replied to was referring
to grandfathering, not to the freeness of the GPL, so it didn't really make
much sense as a reply.
> I think we can live while people spout such rhetoric.
I just supplied a reasonable argument of how the GPL fails DFSG#3. Nobody
has to agree with it, and I'm perfectly willing to live with being in the
minority on that debate--but condescending to opinions you don't agree with