Re: Anti-TPM clauses
Ben Finney wrote:
Olive <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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
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 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
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.