Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Oh, come on. Any argument that implies that we only consider the GPL
>> free because we explicitly say it is is insane.
>
> I am hardly the first person to bring this up [1] [2]. This comment
> from Raul Miller is particularly illuminating [3]
I'm aware of that. They're all insane, too.
> 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".]
Raul remembers incorrectly. Anyone with access to the debian-private
archives is free to check this. The addition of the list of licenses was
a direct result of Ray Dassen suggesting that a list of licenses we
considered free be added. I can find no suggestion that the GPL would
otherwise be considered non-free.
> Raul provided further details later [4].
The vast majority of DFSG-related discussion (for better or for worse)
occured on debian-private. Without checking that, large quantities of
historical context are lost (though, to be fair, even /with/ checking
debian-private there's large parts of context that are missing. The
reason for DFSG 3 being changed from "You must have these freedoms" to
"The recipient must be able to relicense under the same conditions" is
never explained - Bruce is presumably the only person who knows.
>> Without considering the GPL free, we have nothing.
>
> No one is calling the GPL non-free.
People are suggesting that copyleft licenses are only free because of
DFSG 10. That's a hideous fudge. Are you honestly suggesting that it is
the intention of the DFSG to draw the line of freedom in such a way that
the GPL falls outside it, and that the GPL is only accepted for
pragmatic reasons?
>> Interpreting the DFSG in such a way that we can only ship a kernel
>> and basic userland because the GPL is explicitly listed suggests
>> that the interpretation is incorrect.
>
> This point is actually controversial. I am sure that many people
> would like DFSG #10 to be a noop, but it isn't obviously true. In any
> case, whether or not DFSG #10 is a noop has little practical effect.
This point was not controversial at the point where the social contract
was written and voted on. Any controversy is purely down to people's
interpretations of the DFSG changing.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: