Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
On Monday 28 February 2005 11:16, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I haven't tried to formulate a precise definition yet, but I think that
> the GPL's definition is stricter than we should require in general. We
> don't have the DFSG because they provide philosophical freedoms - we
> have the DFSG because they allow people to engage in practical
> activities. If a piece of software allows someone to assert their
> freedom to perform those acts without onerous restrictions, then it
> ought to be free from a DFSG standpoint.
Bravo! That's so much better said, than I managed in my answer to Josh.
The DFSG defines rights Debian needs for its users.
The GPL is a permission granted by the author of a work.
I think, there lies the fundamental difference. An author of a GPL'd work may
believe it is funny to work through hundred different unnamed hexadecimal
constants _and_ may legally license it under the GPL, because being
hyper-intelligent has its priviledges. _But_ this doesn't mean that it is a
good idea to bet on a project with a bus number of 1.
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
-- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15