[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: flowc license

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>>I (and not only I) consider DFSG#10 to be a mistake.  (From my understanding,
>>it was never even intended to be an actual clause of the DFSG.)  Listing the
>>Artistic license is just as bad.  Maybe, at the very least, someone will
>>propose a GR to change it to "3-clause BSD" and "clarified Artistic", but
>>I'm not holding my breath.
> I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you
> suggesting that DFSG 10 is unfortunate because of the specific licenses
> it chooses (ie, it seems to endorse licenses that are free but
> non-optimal), or because it results in us considering the Artistic and
> 4-clause BSD licenses free?

I believe he's saying, as many other debian-legal participants have
said, that it is unfortunate for DFSG10 to be interpreted as an
exception to the rest of the DFSG, rather than as a list of a few
examples of licenses which follow the rest of the DFSG.

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: