On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 11:35 +0400, olive wrote: > Once again if a license clearly fail the DFSG I will never advocate to > include it. 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. 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. 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). In the sense of the Free Software movement, the word "free" is an absolute, much like "pregnant" or "dead". In English, one is either pregnant or not: one cannot be more or less pregnant. Similarly, one is either dead or not dead. One cannot be half-dead. Different jurisdictions might legitimately disagree on how to define whether someone is dead: is it brain function, heart beat, or breath? Likewise, people might legitimately disagree on what "Free Software" is. In Debian, we use the DFSG as our guidelines, but ultimately the opinion that is applied is that of the ftpmaster in question. Also, I think that "Exhibit A" licenses are stupid, I don't like them, and I would not license my work under them. However, they are not necessarily non-free just because I don't like them. > By the way, there are licenses which in my opinion more clearly violates > the DFSGL and are nevertheless accepted. 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 it actually says that (and not merely reminds people that violating their local laws may land them in prison), then please do file a serious bug on that package. Actually, don't bother, because I think it's a "little thing" that shouldn't matter so much, and although I'm not a DD, my opinion should be forced on the whole of Debian. Anyway, most everyone here in the US agrees with me, so I'm obviously right.  This should not be confused with the forms "more *nearly* pregnant" or "less *nearly* pregnant".  Unfortunately, this gross grammatical error is all too common in both the vernacular and among well-known authors who should know better.  "Exhibit A" licenses are those that have traditionally had a section called "Exhibit A"; they redefine everything under the sun.  This paragraph is meant to be illustrative and should not be taken as my real views on anything.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part