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

Re: DFSG#10 and the Open Source Initiative

> > 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.
> > Which was the reason that clause was placed there in the first place.

On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 02:56:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'm not going to be able to regard this as a credible claim without a
> citation.

Here's Bruce's first draft of the DFSG (which expanded on what
the policy manual had to say).  This was before discussion.


Here's another policy statement from that time, note item 2...


Here's a later draft of the DFSG, with the examples clause newly added:


That should establish, at least, that this clause was after discussion,
and not a part of the initial draft.

About the same time, there were statements flying around implying the
artistic license would violate the DFSG, for example:


(But that one was written at the same time as the draft that added the
"example licenses" clause.  I believe there was other trafic to this
effect, but I can't find it.  Maybe I misremembered, or maybe I just am
not searching right.)

Anyways, even if I misremembered the details, I'm pretty sure Bruce
felt his "example licenses" clause was sufficient to address complaints
about the artistic license not satisfying the DFSG.  His big concern
was porting, and related activities.

[Further aside: reading what I wrote back then, I had the same sorts of
problems then as I have now.  How embarassing.  Oh well.]


Reply to: