Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 12:12:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> What matters is that certain arguments voiced in debian-legal reduce the
> credibility of debian-legal, and that has a negative impact on the
> project as a whole.
Yes, arguments such as "Branden Robinson should not be taken into account
when it comes to trying to determine whether there's a consensus of any
description".[1]
> Gah. "Agree to for the purposes of doing stuff within Debian". And
> that's not the case here - '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!"'[1] suggests
> that you're not doing that.
My arguments are founded in a valid interpretation of the DFSG: "patch
clauses are allowed, but as they're a compromise, we don't have to allow
the same level of restrictions on patches as we do in other cases".
I don't claim that this is the only reasonable interpretation--yours is,
too. Neither of us has grounds to claim that our interpretation is the
majority one.
> You're letting your opinions about the
> validity of certain aspects of the DFSG influence your opinions about
> whether a license is free or not.
I'm letting my opinions about freeness influence my opinions of whether
a license is free or not. I consider that a valid influence, because
I consider my beliefs about freeness to be directly in line with the spirit
of the DFSG. Apparently you don't consider it a valid influence, because
you don't consider them to be in line with the DFSG.
I'm not inclined to defend myself further on this point. Again, you
may disregard my opinion and arguments as you see fit, deciding to ignore
my arguments regardless of merit because of your opinion of my opinion.
I'm simply not worried, at this point, that a significant number of
rational people are going to agree with you and do likewise.
> As I've said before, I believe that arguments regarding the freeness or
> otherwise of a license should be founded upon the DFSG. How can you
> honestly do that when you disagree with fundamental aspects of them?
Patch clauses are not a fundamental aspect of the DFSG. The DFSG makes
this explicitly clear. "This is a compromise." This argument might
have more merit if I believed that freedom to modification wasn't
important and that proprietary licenses should be allowed in Debian,
and it seems like you're trying to put my beliefs in that class, but
they just aren't.
[1] Apologies for repeatedly using your name like this, Branden; hopefully
you'll accept it as a complement that I consider the notion that your opinion
should be ignored to be absurd. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: