Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> That's why I believe that portion of DFSG#4 is a huge error, and should be
> corrected. In my opinion (not the DFSG's, at present, per the exception),
> patch clauses are not free at all. As a result, I have a difficult time
> arguing the topic "are patch clauses free with an added 'you must allow
> incorporation' requirement?", because my mind is shouting "but patch clauses
> aren't even free on their own!"
While I appreciate your honesty, It's not entirely clear to me that an
excessively hardline viewpoint on the DFSG should be any more acceptable
than an excessively liberal one. We're happy to discount the opinions of
people who don't see the need for various DFSG clauses because they want
to get more material into Debian - why should we be any happier to
listen to people who disagree with the DFSG in the opposite direction?
Regardless of whether you like it or not, the DFSG embodies the things
that Debian developers have agreed to accept as free. If you disagree
with the DFSG, then your efforts would probably be better spent on
trying to get Debian to change them rather than argue about licenses
that you believe are non-free anyway.
More bluntly - if you disagree with the DFSG then I don't think you
should be attempting to influence decisions regarding which licenses
satisfy them.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: