Re: DFSG#10 and the Open Source Initiative
> > > Please stop pretending your interpretation is consensus; it is not.
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 06:19:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Huh?
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 06:40:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> You said:
>
> > The problem with striking it entirely is that we then have to deal with
> > the people who misinterpret the DFSG to claim that the GPL is not free.
>
> I find this--based on recent discussions, and my understanding of your
> interpretation of DFSG#3--to be assuming that those of us who believe that
> GPL 2a and 2c fail DFSG#3 are "misinterpreting" the DFSG. There is simply
> no such consensus.
Which doesn't make this not a problem
That said, my interpretation of history (both the writing of the DFSG
and its application) makes me feel that the assertion "GPL 2a and 2c fail
DFSG#3" is either irrelevant or wrong in the opinion of some significant
part of Debian.
As I remember it, DFSG#10 was specifically added to the DFSG because some
people were saying that there were strict interpretations of the DFSG
which could cause the GPL to fail, while others (including the author)
were dismissing this as stupid. [In part, because they are "guidelines".]
> > Change "applications" to "instances" and you'd be reasonably correct.
> > Though to be completely accurate you should have the additional qualifier
> > that it's the default instance of the GPL which is considered free
> > (this is "the GPL without any contry specific restriction" -- which
> > happens to be every instance of the GPL I've ever seen).
>
> It's still the GPL, and it's not a case of strange interpretations--GPL#8
> is explicitly intended to be used in this way. I don't think any reasonable
> interpretation of DFSG#10 can make it say "the GPL is free, unless GPL#8
> is exercised".
It is the GPL, and it's not. "The GPL with a restriction excluding the
USA" is not the GPL used on gcc.
> (I think this is a bug in the DFSG; I agree that GPL#8, if used, is
> non-free. I'm not interested in the can of worms necessary to fix it,
> though, especially as it's never actually come up.)
Ok.
> > > I find that to be
> > > exactly as meaningless as interpreting DFSG#3 in the same way, for the
> > > same reasons. I havn't seen anybody else with this opinion on either
> > > of these, so I'm not going to bother repeating the arguments.
> >
> > Can you provide me with a reference to a post which clearly presents
> > these reasons?
> >
> > Failing that, can you provide a keyword, phrase or other such thing
> > which would let me search for these "reasons"?
>
> You've forgotton the lengthy discussions we've had regarding "The
> license must allow some modifications" vs "The license must allow all
> modifications"?
I remember the discussions.
I don't remember any convincing reasoning that there's an implied "all"
there. The closest to that was "we're more concerned about the spirit
of the DFSG than the literal text", or something of that sort.
--
Raul
Reply to: