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

Re: DFSG#10 and the Open Source Initiative

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:18:02PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> DFSG#10 does not say "the GPL used on gcc". 


However, that is an example of the GPL.

> > 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.
> I'll supply someone else's argument, since I've argued my own already:
> From: Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net>
> Message-ID: <[🔎] 40A1670A.8020107@verizon.net>
> > DFSG 3 states that "The license must allow modifications and derived
> > works".  If you read that as "some modifications and derived works",
> > then there must be some qualification for which ones, and no such
> > qualification is present in the DFSG.  If you read it as "all
> > modifications and derived works", no such qualification is necessary.
> > While the DFSG does not explicitly state which interpretation is
> > correct, it does not include the supporting information necessary for
> > the "some" interpretation to be valid.
> The body of your response:
> > You are correct that the DFSG does not exhaustively list all
> > qualifications.
> > But some qualifications are implied.  Paragraphs 4 and 10 both indicate
> > that some qualifications must be allowed.
> Your response did not convincingly counter Josh's argument, since "the
> supporting information necessary" is, in fact, not present.

Ii can agree that it's not explicitly present.  

In any event, the problem he's presenting is that we must choose between
"ambiguous, and contradiction free" and "unambiguous, yet contradictory".

I don't see the existence of that choice as a convincing reason to accept
the contradictory option.

> DFSG#4 is usually read as an explicit exception to DFSG#3, and does not
> qualify as the "supporting information necessary for the "some"
> interpretation to be valid."

That's one way of looking at it.  It's not the only way.

> The reference to DFSG#10 again assumes a consensus regarding DFSG#10
> that doesn't exist; I'll skip that, since we've been there.

Any lack of consensus doesn't mean that the viewpoint isn't
a way of looking at it.

> (Josh's response applies to the "all instances of the GPL" versus "some
> instances of the GPL" argument, as well.)

And, again,  the existence of a choice between "ambiguous but
contradiction free" and "unambiguous but contradictory" is not in and
of itself a reason to pick the contradictory option.

> I'm not going to continue this argument much longer, though, for the
> same reasons as before--I believe your interpretation of DFSG#3 is an
> extreme minority, and the debate is tiresome (probably for the rest
> of the list as well as myself).



Reply to: