Your papers are not in order, citizen...
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:04:25PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> All in all, I think that Branden's fifth freedom[1] is important, and
> should come into play here. Privacy in one's person includes fundamental
[...]
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/06/msg00096.html
Ah, but my fifth freedom is not in the DFSG, so under the nouveau scheme
of license analysis that some would have us apply, we are morally obliged
to completely disregard it.
Thanks for the props, however. I continue to believe that a DFSG analysis
is the *beginning* of a process of understanding whether something is free
software or not, not a substitute for the whole thing. Certain well-known
people in the project have stridently insisted to me, however, that this
opinion puts me into an extremely small minority.
I think signify[1] has shown artificial intelligence again -- there is
indeed a tension between the literal-minded DFSG fundamentalists ("if the
DFSG doesn't mention it, it must be free") and those who actually cogitate
openly about what the DFSG was written to defend, and how it's going to
take more than a list propositions recited by rote to uphold our freedoms.
What is the virtue that DFSG strict constructionists are upholding? Low
mailing list traffic? Developer laziness? Ignorance of legal issues that
affect the work we do? The spread of Debian main across as many UDFs as
possible in the next release?
Are these things really more important to us than freedom?
[1] http://packages.debian.org/unstable/mail/signify
--
G. Branden Robinson | A fundamentalist is someone who
Debian GNU/Linux | hates sin more than he loves
branden@debian.org | virtue.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John H. Schaar
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature