Re: DFSG#10 and the Open Source Initiative
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 06:19:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Please stop pretending your interpretation is consensus; it is not.
>
> Huh?
You said:
> The problem with striking it entirely is that we then have to deal with
> the people who misinterpret the DFSG to claim that the GPL is not free.
I find this--based on recent discussions, and my understanding of your
interpretation of DFSG#3--to be assuming that those of us who believe that
GPL 2a and 2c fail DFSG#3 are "misinterpreting" the DFSG. There is simply
no such consensus.
> Change "applications" to "instances" and you'd be reasonably correct.
> Though to be completely accurate you should have the additional qualifier
> that it's the default instance of the GPL which is considered free
> (this is "the GPL without any contry specific restriction" -- which
> happens to be every instance of the GPL I've ever seen).
It's still the GPL, and it's not a case of strange interpretations--GPL#8
is explicitly intended to be used in this way. I don't think any reasonable
interpretation of DFSG#10 can make it say "the GPL is free, unless GPL#8
is exercised".
(I think this is a bug in the DFSG; I agree that GPL#8, if used, is
non-free. I'm not interested in the can of worms necessary to fix it,
though, especially as it's never actually come up.)
> > I find that to be
> > exactly as meaningless as interpreting DFSG#3 in the same way, for the
> > same reasons. I havn't seen anybody else with this opinion on either
> > of these, so I'm not going to bother repeating the arguments.
>
> Can you provide me with a reference to a post which clearly presents
> these reasons?
>
> Failing that, can you provide a keyword, phrase or other such thing
> which would let me search for these "reasons"?
You've forgotton the lengthy discussions we've had regarding "The
license must allow some modifications" vs "The license must allow all
modifications"?
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: