[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 02:46:17PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I believe the change to section 10 of the licence is sufficient to address
> the objection to that section in the original summary.  Is there consensus
> on this?

No, the clause hasn't really changed. It's still non-free for all the
same reasons.

> I further believe the objection to item #5 in the original summary
> is spurious.  As admitted in the summary, the DFSG does not prohibit this.

It admits no such thing. The DFSG does not explicitly prohibit a whole
range of things; they're implicitly prohibited as being too obviously
non-free to be worth mentioning. They generally fall under clauses 1
and 3, as restrictions on distribution or modification.

The DFSG is not a program. The DFSG is not a law. The DFSG is not
precise. It is meant to be interpreted by rational people, and that's
what happens. You cannot try to treat it as a program in order to
exploit loopholes in the wording.

> The Dissident test is under question and does not appear to have broad
> support within Debian as an additional DFSG guideline, so the objection
> to item #9 is irrelevant.

Insane. By that argument the GPL is non-free. Just because some
lunatic has objected to something in the past does not mean it isn't

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: