On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 03:09:20 -0700 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> It's a
> fine point and I know there are some DDs who won't look at it this
> way, but if the software authors aren't attempting to discriminate
> among fields of endeavor -- only disclaiming responsibility for
> obtaining patent rights from a third party on anyone's behalf, and
> advising recipients that upstream focuses on the "substantial
> non-infringing uses" (personal use and use by patent licensees) that
> protect upstream and distributor from allegations of infringement --
> then I think there's at least a case for calling it DFSG-free.
I really doubt that a package which requires (patent) royalty payment
for use in certain fields of endeavor can possibly be called DFSG-free.
At least, it seems that it couldn't satisfy DFSG#6: even if the package
authors do not want to discriminate, external factors (i.e. patents) do
discriminate anyway.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpc7CZx2NE9b.pgp
Description: PGP signature