On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:07:30 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote: > On 01/12/07 09:27, Francesco Poli wrote: > > >> Even though the existence of an optional clause (like NC) appears > >> to contradict the DFSG in situations we can imagine, that does not > >> rule out it's use will always contradict the DFSG for every case. > > > > I think it will: it forbids selling the work (fails DFSG#1) and > > discriminates against a field of endeavor (fails DFSG#6). > > I agree with what you say here. My argument is based on the fact that > those rules are _guidelines_ and sometimes there are exceptions. Maybe > we disagree that there can ever be valid exceptions? If you believe that some works can in some cases be entirely unmodifiable or restricted to non-commercial distribution and be DFSG-free nonetheless, then we definitely disagree in this respect. And I think there are really few chances that I will change my opinion on this topic... -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/releas-o-meter.html Try our amazing Releas-o-meter! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpZt9HDMCnXW.pgp
Description: PGP signature