On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:04:22PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:18:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Le Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 01:25:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit : > > > Chris wrote: > > > > > > > >I think this clause in the license absolutely fails the dissident test > > > > > > Please point to the DFSG section that mentions the "dissident test". > > > > Hi Steve, > > > > I think that the "dissident test" and others are indirectly mentionned to > > everyone who wants to join Debian: > > > > http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/nm/trunk/nm-templates/nm_pp1.txt?revision=1246&view=markup > > > > 60 PH7. How do you check if a license is DFSG-compatible? > > 61 > > 62 PH8. There are a few "tests" for this purpose, based on (not really) common > > 63 situations. Explain them to me and point out which common problems can > > 64 be discovered by them. > > Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The > proposed "dissident test" does not work and is proven to be wrong in > some cases already. DFSG 5, No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups If I'm a freedom fighter (or, political activist in the middle east right exactly now), I want to be able to use Debian to help work with my other freedom fighters, without the gov't knowing I even have such software. If I change Tor slightly for our use, and distribute it as TorForkOne, I don't want to have to put my real name, real anything. If it just needs any name, fine, but not my real one. It's not wrong, I think this is a perfectly great application of DFSG point 5. More simply, it checks for license that discriminates against people who wish to not use their real name, for privacy or otherwise. > > > I do not find these tests particularly useful, but as long as they are promoted > > this way, we are likely to see people using them on this lit. > > Some people (Henning Makholm et al.) were on debian-legal around 2003 > using this "dissident tests" to shoot down many non-GLP/BSD licenced > packages. Please note some of the casualities such as ipadic were later > accepted to Debian main with some efforts. > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=641070 > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2011/09/msg00010.html > > I hope my summary page gives good idea what has been. > > http://wiki.debian.org/IpadicLicense > > As I noted there, such extreme interpretation of license text can yield > GPL2.0 to violate DFSG #5. > > I think after he failed to shootdown OpenOffice for its licence, he > became quiet. If we followed such tests by him, we would not have > LibreOffice either now. > > > If you think they create more noise than signal, perhaps you or others can > > consider asking for a change to the NM templates via a bug reported to > > nm.debian.org. > > I agree. > > I think we should clean some wiki-pages holding such extreme positions. > > Osamu > kbai, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature