Re: Anton's amendment
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Anton's amendment
- From: Hubert Chan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 22:52:32 -0700
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20060206003138.GQ9046@taz.net.au> (Craig Sanders's message of "Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:31:38 +1100")
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20060202104038.GC1990@debian.inet> <20060205134753.GA30937@aehallh.com> <20060205223419.GP9046@taz.net.au> <20060205225554.GA4474@aehallh.com> <20060206003138.GQ9046@taz.net.au>
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:31:38 +1100, Craig Sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL
> proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not
> merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenience, only
I don't really understand what you mean by a real world, practical
proof. The way that Debian evaluates licenses as being non-free is if
they have restrictions that run counter to the DFSG. If it is possible
that a situation can arise where a license restricts someone from doing
things that the DFSG says that he/she should be allowed to do, then that
license should, IMHO, be considered non-free.
But perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you mean by "proof". As a
mathematician, no proofs to me are real world, nor practical.
BTW, can non-zealots offer proofs as well, or is this challenge only
open to zealots?
Hubert Chan <email@example.com> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.