On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 02:08:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Your papers are not in order, citizen...
*shuffles, represents* Better? :)
> 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.
Yes, and no. I wasn't arguing that it made it directly and precisely
DFSG-nonfree. However, as has been pointed out many times, the G is for
Guidelines, and debian-legal has rendered opinions about "This seems to
miss the point even while complying with the letter". The fifth freedom may
not yet be enshrined at the same level as other things, but I do find it
a useful guideline for asking "Does this impinge on a freedom many people
seem to value?"
Certainly I wouldn't claim that it is, alone, sufficient to declare a
license wholly non-free, but it might be enough to raise more questions
(such as 'do the upstream authors consider pseudonyms and obviously false
addresses sufficient' - if they do, then at least for this case, it
wouldn't be an issue).
> 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
Hmm. I must look into signify. Definitely. :)
My personal opinion is that the counter of "should this be reasonable to
expect of people so I don't get more support mail" is worth evaluating; the
question, in this case, may well be "neither is automatically protected,
but which one seems more valuble to protect? And is that important enough
to warrant declaring it non-free?"
I know my answer, but I'm also personally biased in favor of pseudonyms,
since there are STILL documents from my (not-quite-)mis-spent youth
floating around the net that talk about things that might well become
illegal if the US Govt has it's way with the first amendment.
--
Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature