Re: Anti-TPM clauses
Ben Finney wrote:
Olive <email@example.com> 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.
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.