On Sat, 04 Feb 2006, olive wrote: > Don Armstrong wrote: > >When we discuss them, we can discern between the two cases, but > >it's not appropriate for Debian to bend its own guidelines to allow > >in works which do not meet the requirements of the DFSG simply > >because we think it would be nice to include them. > > But there are a lot of case where this is not the case and I think > people claim that the license violates the DFSG just because they do > no like it. For me at least, there are a lot of licenses which I don't like which I believe don't fall afoul of the DFSG. I assume there are others who feel similarly. I try very hard to make it clear when I'm voicing dissatisfaction with the license, and when I'm pointing out part of the license which is DFSG incompatible. > There is no rule which say that "every bits of a file can be > modified"; but there are law which says that you must be able to use > your freedom. I'm not sure what else you can reasonably interpret DFSG 3 as meaning. > Debian has already accepted resctriction similar to the GFDL > (acknoledgement of the BSD license etc,...); the invariant sections > are in nature not more (these are acknoledgement for the GNU > project; and yes it a bit longer). Save for the fact that they're not invariant, or you don't actually have to include those sections. [And yes, many of us do have problems with GPL 2c as well.] > I think of a license of a file in x.org which prohibit to export it > to Cuba. This seems clearly be a discrimination and moreover it > fails the dissident test (even if in this case the dissidant might > be a U.S citizen; not a chinese one). For someone (like me) living > outside the U.S. this is even more flagrant because to export goods > to Cuba is perfectly legal from my country. If this were actually stated in the license, it would be non free. Indeed, if clause 8 of GPLv2 were ever activated for a piece of software in Debian, I think it would become non-free as well, DFSG §10 be damned. As others have explained in this thread, that's a legal export requirement imposed on people by the US government which has been conflated with the licence by mere proximity instead of intent. Don Armstrong -- If you have the slightest bit of intellectual integrity you cannot support the government. -- anonymous http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature