[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:51:15 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:

> Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:11:52 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > > Has it?  I've seen a few people write down this assumption, but
> > > I've usually disagreed with them.
> > 
> > I'm afraid you then think that you have to purge every GPLv2
> > preamble from Debian main. [...]
> I'm afraid that your telepathy device is broken.

Quite probably!   ;-)

> While we should
> (note should, not must) purge the preamble from packages which contain
> the GPL where it is not needed for the distribution of the package, it
> remains because other parts of our promise are equally important.
> This doesn't make licence texts an exception to our rules, but an
> example of how to handle conflict in our promise without giving free
> rein to all abuses.

You can describe that a conflict-resolution strategy, I hadn't thought
about that from this point of view, but anyway I'm not sure that a
conflict in the promise is a good thing to keep...
Maybe making an explicit exception is better (err, "less worse"?)...

> The rest of the 'slippery slope' posted vanishes
> as a result of removing the false dichotomy.

Sure, once the premise is proved false, all the consequences vanish.

> Sorry it's grey, not black or white for you.

Are there many other greynesses in how the SC and the DFSG are

 Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpRYoHVX1wWP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: