Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 05:25:52PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 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.
No, it has changed. There are multiple points of view about anti-patent
clauses; this clause doesn't address all of them, but it does address
Some people think they can be okay, but that this original license was
Some others think they're inherently non-free.
> > 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.
I agree that the DFSG prohibits things it doesn't explicitly mention.
However, you seem to be claiming that everything the DFSG prohibits
that it doesn't mention explicitly is "too obviously non-free to be
worth mentioning". This seems to imply that everything which is non-
free and not mentioend in the DFSG is obvious.
This simply isn't true. You know this, from participation; many of
these things take long and careful consideration to figure out.
The DFSG doesn't enumerate all non-free restrictions because it's
impossible--people are always finding creative new ways to restrict
freedom--not because they're "obvious".
> > 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.
Making questionable, unestablished assertions and then blowing off serious
objections is not an effective argument tactic.