Re: GPL "or any greater version" (was: NEW ocaml licence proposal)
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 06:18:50AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> In reaction to this thread I have added an item to address this
> question to
>
> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
>
> which I believe summarizes the consensus here, as well as the
> expressed opinion and intent of the FSF regarding the "or later"
> clause.
Yuck. There's a lot of off-topic stuff in there--questions unimportant
to the interpretation and use of the DFSG. (This is one--it belongs
in the FSF's GPL FAQ, if anywhere.) I couldn't point somebody wanting
to know about the DFSG to this, since it tangents too much into other
stuff. It's like pointing somebody wanting to know about a debate to
list archives.
Is this stuff really necessary? Just at a glance, 19, 22, 23, 24, 28,
30, and 32 don't seem to be about the DFSG or its use at all.
I'm not sure that there's any consensus on "almost-free licenses"; it's
not clear what that even means, and that's reflected by "XXX". (Certainly
we have "non-free licenses"--"pet a cat"--and "really non-free licenses"--
"kill a cat"--but "almost-free" doesn't seem very meaningful.) Are 20
and 21 necessary?
BTW: I'd add "... the FSF's " to 33.
There's a lot of information to be presented about the DFSG; it's a lot
harder to do so effectively if the document is allowed to tangent into
any and all matters related to free software.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: