On Sep 09, George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> wrote: > > It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free > > it's up to you explaining why. > here they are: So finally we are up to the good old "every restriction is a discrimination" argument. Even if in the last two years it has become popular among some debian-legal@ contributors while the rest of the project was not looking, I believe that it is based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of DFSG #5. The purpose of this clause is to forbid licenses which provide the required freedoms only to some people (e.g. forbidding commercial use of the software), not to require that all recipients will receive the same set of rights which are not required by the DFSG. > I also think this abreaches the Debian Social Contract#4, since you expose your > users on baseless charges of license violation for no good reasons all over > the world. Breaks "We will place their interests first in our priorities." This is not relevant. This way you could use the SC to forbid just about everything you do not like, while the SC itself and many years of practice define the DFSG as the criteria to be used to evaluate the freeness of licenses. > [1] claiming that Debian has already accepted cddl by having cddl'ed star is > weak arg because it easily could be clasified as bug. While it is obviously true that the ftpmasters are humans and therefore fallible beings, the fact that they have been accepting this kind of clauses in licenses since many years ago (QPL...) makes this interpretation unlikely. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature