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

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

Ben Finney wrote:
Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> writes:

debian2007@macfreek.nl wrote:
There seem to be consensus that as long as there is no vote on [CC
by-sa 3.0], it's probably non-free, and best not put it in
main. Correct?

Wrong. CC-BY-SA 3.0 is a free license and many works licensed this
way are in main.

Note that the latter does not necessarily imply the former. Many
packages have been in main against the advice of a consensus view on
debian-legal that the package is non-free.

I think also that a consensus on debian legal that something is non "free" (which should more accurately called "DFSG-free" since not everybody has the same definition for "free") does not mean it is indeed non DFSG-free. Debian legal is only a mailing list to discuss licenses, by no means it is a tribunal that can take official decision. Only the ftp masters or a vote can decide litigious cases. There are known example of things that are indeed DFSG-free but were declared non-free by "consensus" on debian legal (the GFDL without non modifiable section is an example).


Reply to: