Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller wrote:
>>>Given that "arbitrary functional modifications" would include illegal
>>>activities
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:59:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>>It does. A license that tries to incorporate "you must follow the law"
>>clauses is non-free. That is a longstanding and clear consesnsus on d-l.
>
> That's good as far as it goes.
>
> However, that doesn't go very far when dealing with issues of
> interoperation and creation of derived works.
>
>>>I don't think that "arbitrary functional modifications" is a very accurate
>>>representation of what the DFSG is really trying to allow for.
>>
>>I think you're badly wrong here.
>
> So, in essence, you think that the DFSG says we must disallow the
> distribution of gcc if its license prevents you distributing copies which
> have been functionally modified to better integrate with microsoft's
> palladium?
Yes. From DFSG 6:
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program
> in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
> program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic
> research.
... or for being used to promote Treacherous Computing.
> And, if that is what you think, perhaps you can explain how this point of
> view has our users and the free software community as its top priorities?
As I said in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00307.html:
> Many Free Software authors would be upset at some uses of their
> software, but that does not mean that Debian should consider a license
> Free that prohibits use by opressive governments, or by DMCA enforcers
> (see previous item), or in "Treacherous Computing" architectures, even
> if Debian agreed that such uses are abhorrent. The FSF themselves say
> the same thing in their rejection of one such license, which prohibits
> uses for spyware and human-rights violations:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html .
If Debian accepts conditions in a license that say you cannot use the
software for purposes the author finds morally wrong, Debian is then in
the position of making moral judgements about what conditions it finds
acceptable. Rather than go down that path, we reject all such conditions.
- Josh Triplett
Reply to: