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

Re: flowc license

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:32:09PM +0000, 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?

Both. They *are* lousy licenses to endorse, and some people *do* try
to use it as a trump card to defeat rational analysis of these
licenses. Realistically, even if everybody at the time thought they
were free according to the DFSG, they might have been *wrong*. Eris
knows it happens often enough; accurate license analysis takes
discussion on the order of *years*. It only takes one small bug to
make a license non-free, and the law is unforgiving of bugs.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: