Re: could you safely rewrite the DFSG requirement?
Sven <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Maybe, but it is not what is written. Also i guess if you ask all
> debian developpers about this, not 100% of them will agree with you
> on what they read there.
What is written is that free distribution of aggregations must be
permitted. Aggregation with one page, with one tiny little
insignificant addition *is* aggregation, and *is* what is written.
That's all I'm saying. I want to be sure that O'Reilly explicitly
> Also, i suppose you were already a debian developper when the DFSG was first
> written, to say that it was interpreted such from day one, if yes, why was it
> not written clearly ?
I was around and payed close attention to the process, but I was not a
Debian Developer. Why don't you ask the people who wrote it?
> "altough the DFSG seems to say otherwise, we won't accept this licence,
> because we don't consider it as free".
The DFSG does not say otherwise. The license (as written) requires
that aggregations be DFSG free; the DFSG requires that free
distribution be permitted for all aggregations, including those such
as (for example) Sun OS.
> This would have been understandable, but this is not what did
> happen, there were various different reasons for rejection given,
> and a polemic about what is considered an aggregation, the absurd
> proposal of aggregating an no content one liner and other such
The point is that the DFSG requires that free distribution as part of
an aggregation be permitted. It does not allow *any* restriction of
this, and thus, even a "no content one liner" aggregation is an
aggregation, and free distribution of this must be permitted,
according to the DFSG.
I don't know whether O'Reilly understands this or not.
> The correct way to solve this is to change the DFSG to say what we
> want it to say, and not to resort to obscure interpretations to have
> it mean what we want it to mean.
Unlike you, apparently, I'm quite content with what it does say.