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

Re: Final text of GPL v3

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:40:24 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote:

> This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> > 
> > Clause 2c of GPLv2 is already an inconvenience and border-line with
> > respect to DFSG-freeness.  This is, at least, my humble opinion on
> > the matter.
> > "Border-line" does not mean that it *fails* the DFSG, but that it's
> > *very close* to fail.
> > 
> > Compare with the obnoxious advertising clause of the 4-clause BSD
> > license: it's an inconvenience close to fail the DFSG, IMO.  But we
> > accept it as DFSG-free.
> If you believe this, then you are misreading the DFSG.  We explicitly
> hold those two licenses up as exemplars of a free software license, to
> make it clear what the rest of the DFSG is about.

Firstoff, I'm not sure the "BSD" license mentioned in DFSG#10 is the
4-clause BSD.
At least, in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD there's the 3-clause BSD,
with no OAC...

> If you find the
> exemplars are close to failing your idea of what the DFSG means, then
> your idea is wrong.

DFSG#10 merely states that the listed licenses """are examples of
licenses that we consider "free"."""
It does not say that those are the best possible DFSG-free licenses, or
that they are far from the boundaries of DFSG-freeness.

In fact, providing examples that are deep inside the DFSG-freeness
region and very far from its boundaries, would not be much useful to
"make it clear what the rest of the DFSG is about".
Imagine a DFSG#10 that only stated that Debian considers public domain
software as DFSG-free: it would not clarify much...

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

Attachment: pgpTvnfzWXOsE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: