Re: DFSG as Licence?

[Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com>]

Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle@freenet.de> writes:

> Hello *,
>
> Since I have read tonns of different licences I do not realy know
> what to do.  Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception
> of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my
> Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG.
>
> Question:
>
> Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence?
>
> I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok,
> but I have complains against the new one.

If you do not like gpl3, use gpl2 without the "or later" option, if
that does what you want.  The FSF won't like you if you do, but nobody
is under any obligation to please them.  Personally, I'm allergic to
more than two paragraphs of legalese, and I don't want to release my
work under terms I do not fully understand, so I release my stuff
under the MIT license.  It gives a little more permission than the
GPL, but I don't really care if someone uses my code in a commercial
application.  It doesn't interfere with my reasons for releasing it in
the first place, and it lets any free software project use it, without
any concerns about being "GPL compatible".  All the fuss about open
source licenses being incompatible is, IMHO, contradictory to the
spirit of free software, and spending time on such issues is
counter-productive.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com