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

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

Scripsit Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>

> * the title: why `stuff'?

Mostly to emphasize the draftness of the text. Not intended to be

> Should these guidelines become the new DFSG, I think they will be named
> Debian Free Software Guidelines version 2.0


> * question: "Such a restriction is exactly as silly as it sounds.
> However, some otherwise free programs come with licenses that specify
> that the program must not be sold alone but only as part of an aggregate
> software distribution."
> Do you regard those programs as free? Is there any consensus on d-l
> about this awkward restriction?

Yes, this is a fairly solid consensus. It is more or less forced by
the wording of the current DFSG #1, which only requires the right to
distribute and sell "as a component of an aggregate software
distribution containing programs from several different sources".

Se, for example,

I don't think there is much argument that this exception *exists*
today. It is not difficult to find people who would like to see it go
away, but at the moment my aim is to capture exactly the effects of
the current DFSG in its usual interpretation.

A secondary goal is to make the warts conspicuous enough that it is
easy to get rid of them later, which is why I wrote this in a specific
exception rather than burying it in the wording clause 3E.

> * Specific exception for 3-clause BSD licenses: "Debian strongly
> encourages authors to use more appropriate tools than copyright licenses
> if they feel they need more protection than the usual laws against
> misleading advertising." which tools? Trademarks? Any other? I think you
> should suggest at least one...

I agree. But it was getting late, and I didn't care to look up
Branden's denouncement and find the proper legal spellwords.
Suggestions for better wording of the comment would be appreciated.

> Just a question: does this mean that you also grandfather GPL#8?

Um, no. That is a good reason not to have a grandfather clause,
actually. Removed.

> [2] read as: I would prefer if d-l revised the three famous licenses to
> be sure they are acceptable on the basis of the other guidelines

Well, we don't really have enough power over the three famous licenses
to impose revisions on them...

Thanks for the other comments; applied.

Henning Makholm          "Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte.
                    Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af
                  en sådan størrelsesorden og af en karaktér, som berettiger
              forestillingerne om den nye hjemme- og husholdningsteknologi."

Reply to: