Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:31:44PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 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.
Luckily, Lewis Jardine has already provided a different view on this subject:
4 may be non-free: as RMS understands it, violating the GPL for a given
work terminates any rights you have to it, now and in the future,
even those which would otherwise be granted by having another copy
of the work distributed to you. This may (/may/) violate DFSG #9 (if
you were to violate the GPL in one work, you then couldn't distribute
the same code in a different work), or may (/may/) violate the spirit
of the DFSG.
That, and the aspects you're listing can be seen as due dilligence issues.
[Also, you didn't mention the "dissident test" -- but you did seem to
claim I was lying for touching on the ground where some people object
to the GPL on that basis, so I'm going to wedge in another comment
here: I feel the dissident test is of relatively little importance.
The situations where it has any legal relevance are extremely obscure.
A truly oppressive government is going to prosecute on something other
than copyright grounds, and will have other laws in place which are far,
far more likely to cause problems for someone with brittle legalistic
morals. Also, someone who isn't comfortable with their legal name on
a document can use a pen name -- they don't get the same kinds of legal
protections this way, but a dissident looking for legal protections on
a forbidden work is not going to get the kinds of legal protections that
you might hope for.]
> 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.
You object to drawing parallels?
Perhaps I did Francesco a disservice, the way I phrased my response --
but this entire realm of discussion is fraught with unreachable maybes.
> > 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
> is unimpressive.
I do disagree with such arguments, and I've already provided my reasoning.
That said, I hadn't meant to impress you by saying that we can live with
people who object to the GPL.