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

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:31:04 +0200 Freek Dijkstra wrote:

> Are they *DFSG-free* or not? So yes, it *is* a GR-vote who
> decides here. Because the DFSG are only changed or clarified by such a
> vote.

Please note that GR-2006-001 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001)
did not change the DFSG: that would have needed a 3:1 supermajority,
which the winning option did not require.
One thing is changing a founding document, such as the DFSG.
One different thing is deciding that packages licensed in a given manner
will be accepted in main.

> FYI, My personal opinion is that CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are clearly
> created with the intention of keeping a work available for other to
> build upon it, and are thus "free" or "Freek-free", since it is my,
> Freek's, definition of free.

This is an ill-conceived definition, because what effectively grants
permissions to licensees is the actual license text, not the intentions
of the license drafters.

If you like, you can compare with evaluating the quality of a program by
only judging its design.  Regardless of how buggy the actual
implementation is!

> (Hmm, that name a nice ring to it ;-) .).
> Clearly, "Freek-free" and "Francesco-free" are not equal. Not
> surprising: there is always a trade-off in freeness. We probably all
> agree that allowing someone to take existing work, claim it as his/her
> own, and exploit it is actually a freedom for that person.

Please note that I am not by any means advocating any right to
proprietarize works.
I am not against copyleft.
I often choose or recommend the GNU GPL license.


 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpZFwzA3DlUj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: