Re: Validity of DFSG #10
On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 08:35:00PM +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
> Just to give a background as part of my NM process me and my AM (intrigeri)
> started a discussion on ambiguity in DFSG #10 which specifies example of DFSG
> free license as BSD, GPL and Artistic. The web version of DFSG text at [1]
> currently provides link to each license name which respectively points to
> BSD-3-clause, GPL v3 page and Artistic license 1.0 page from perl project.
> But the text file of social_contract[2] shipped as part of doc-debian package
> doesn't contain any references to which version of license it is referring
> to.
The text of the DFSG doesn't state which versions of the GPL, BSD and Artistic
licenses we consider "free". If there is ambiguity in DFSG #10 then it's not
about the links on the webpage and the absence of links in the text file
shipped in doc-debian, but rather about the room for debate on whether all
existing and future versions of GPL, BSD and Artistic licenses would be
DFSG-free.
> In brief Jakub Wilk wanted to get rid of DFSG #10 as it is creating ambiguous
> situation by pointing to licenses which have multiple variants.
I'm not against removing DFSG #10. Mentioning or not mentioning the examples
don't change the DFSG themselves if the examples conform to the DFSG.
If the DFSG continue to mention examples, then the examples must be
unambigiously identified, so that only verified variants and versions are
included.
> In my opinion DFSG #10 is not a guideline but a statement giving example
> compared to other DFSG's
I agree that DFSG #10 is just a list of examples, not really a "guideline" as
the "G" in "DFSG".
> so even I feel it is better to drop DFSG #10.
That is a choice we could make.
Regards,
Bart Martens
Reply to: