Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:43:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>
> > So you believe that if we taught all developers about intricate
> > licensing issues, the number who would be of the opinion that DFSG 4 is
> > a mistake and that the GPL is only free because of DFSG 10 would
> > increase significantly?
>
> Probably, though I think that, taken proportionally, you'd see a much
> larger increase in the former than the latter. That may be because
> I think that DFSG 4 doesn't allow surprising modifications, which are
> fundamental to freedom.
�"surprising modifications"?
> > I don't wish to characterise people with knowledge and reasoned opinions
> > as extremists. I do wish to characterise people who believe that several
> > things that Debian accepts as free should be non-free as extremists. If
> > there is overlap between the two, that doesn't mean that I'm calling
> > them extremists because of their knowledge.
>
> Debian accepts several pieces of QPL'd software as free. I don't
> think the QPL is a free software license. Does that fact alone make
> me an extremist?
There remains some amount of debate about whether the QPL is a free
software license. I don't think disagreement over individual licenses is
in itself a sign of extremism - I think the QPL is probably free, but
close to the line.
> Is anyone with a position on the GFDL an extremist, then, or just the
> losers? That really could have gone either way.
If it could have gone either way, that suggests that the losers aren't
extremists. I think people who disagree with the DFSG (in either
direction) are probably extremists - there's enough room for different
interpretations and beliefs without actually having to disagree that
active disagreement suggests that your opinions are fairly extreme.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: