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

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

Ben Finney wrote:
Olive <olive001@tele2allin.be> writes:

There are known example of things that are indeed DFSG-free

By what criterion do you decide that something is "indeed DFSG-free"?
If such a criterion existed, I'm sure we'd love to know about it. It
would make our lives on this list much simpler.

For the GFDL; I consider a GR-vote as a valid criterion.

The DFSG is subject to interpretation and it is not possible to decide all cases definitively by just reading the terms. Debian has set rules to decide if a work can or cannot be considered DFSG-free (ftp masters GR-vote); and these rules certainly does not include a consensus on Debian legal. The argument that many works in main are under the creative common license is a good one. One possibility is an error of the ftp masters (and a bug report should correct it); the other possibility is a conscientious decision and in this case it can be declared DFSG-free at least until this decision is validly reverted.

but were declared non-free by "consensus" on debian legal (the GFDL
without non modifiable section is an example).

Again, note that a GR vote only decides *what the Debian project will
or will not do*. Such a vote cannot declare a work DFSG-free; that is
a property of the work and its license terms, unaffected by the result
of a vote.

Please see


and the text of the GR-vote:

At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

This text leaves no doubt for me GFDL (without invariant section) it has been declared to follow the DFSG; this is indeed what the vote says.


Reply to: