Re: Anti-TPM clauses

[Olive <olive001@tele2allin.be>]

Ben Finney wrote:
> Olive <olive001@tele2allin.be> writes:
>
> > Ben Finney wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> A strange qualification. Presumably, then, you would *not* consider a
> GR vote a valid criterion for deciding DFSG-freeness of works under
> other license terms?

I spoke of GFDL because it was a known example of a work having declared 
free by a GR-vote against a "consensus" on Debian legal. If a vote state 
clearly that something is DFSG-free; then I consider it is; whatever the 
license.

> > The DFSG is subject to interpretation and it is not possible to decide
> > all cases definitively by just reading the terms.
>
> Indeed, which is the rationale for this forum: to attempt to gain
> consensus on the DFSG-freeness of a work. from many people examining
> the specific work and its terms, as an aid to deciding what to
> do. Sometimes the ftpmasters act against the consensus of this
> list.
>
> In neither case is the DFSG-freeness of the work affected. That's
> something that, after the work is released, can only be *discovered*,
> not constructed.

Not quite; the DFSG are only guidelines. If something is obviously 
non-free such a say M$-Windows there will be no discussion. For the rest 
the decision is subject to interpretation that are indeed subjective and 
the final answer depend to a decision; there is not an absolute answer 
that have to be discovered. Debian legal is not entitled to take a 
decision. The ftp masters are and in the case remains contentious after 
the decision taken by the ftp masters there should be a vote (this is 
what have happens to the GFDL). I think this procedure is a good thing; 
the opinion and the "decisions" taken on Debian legal are not 
representative of the Debian community.

More generally the participants on Debian legal should discuss wether a 
given software will or will not be accepted in Debian main; because that 
is exactly the meaning of "DFSG-free". There are not entitled to take 
decisions on their owns as it is often the case. If  several softwares 
under a given license were previously accepted; it is a good indication 
that the software is indeed "considered free by the Debian community"; 
in other words DFSG-free.

> > [...]
> > 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.
>
> Yes. It's a vote saying *what Debian will do*. It is not an absolute
> declaration of truth about GFDL works. The former is necessary in
> order that action may be taken, but it doesn't change the truth of the
> latter, which may still await discovery.

Please reread the official page; the title is:

"Debian considers GNU FDL conditionally free"

something considered free by Debian is DFSG-free.

Olive