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

Re: {SPAM} Re: Anton's amendment

This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:16:49 +0000, Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> said: 
> > This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:49:25 +0000, Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org>
> >> said:
> >> 
> >> > Except that the GPL already explicitly precludes modifications of
> >> > this type (not this scope, but this type, mind you), and our
> >> > foundation documents consider the GPL a free license.
> >> 
> >> I have been thinking about this (originally brought up by Russ). I
> >> have also been re-reading the SC/DFSG, and the time they were
> >> written. I also started with the idea that the SC/DFSG are to be
> >> considered to be consistent, unless strong evidence exists to the
> >> contrary.
> >> 
> >> So, the DFSG are what they say they are -- guidelines. However,
> >> some licenses were deemed by the project to be de-facto free, even
> >> if they do contravene some of the guidelines, hence explicitly
> >> naming the GPL and the bsd licenses. The naming them specifically
> >> removes the requirement that they meet all the guidelines.
> > That's an interesting interpretation, made even more strange by the
> > fact that they are listed explicitly as examples of what we consider
> > free, rather than exemptions.  It occurs to me that you may be
> > trying to redefine what the DFSG means retroactively.
>         Err, this is an attempt to see if the DFSG and SC are self
>  consistent, not a defining official interpretation of the DFSG. And
>  yes, they are examples of free licesnes, and by giving them as
>  explicit examples of free licenses, we did two things: A, provide a
>  standard set of licenses to compare others by, and B) ensure that no
>  one ever tries to throw them out by mesuring them against the
>  guidelines and coming up with a motion to render them non-free.

I'm sorry, but even that is straining logic.  We have a standard measure
in place to change foundation documents, and that is a 3:1 GR.  Having
them listed only means that they won't be ruled non DFSG free on a whim,
but we are always free to bring up a motion.

It appears to me that the DFSG can be viewed as entirely self consistent
if you remove the a priori notion that 'must allow modification' means
'must allow modification of everything shipped with the work'.

>         Anyway, as it stands, I am left struggling with my discomfort
>  with the "no not remove interactive copyright notices" bit of the
>  GPL.

As am I.  But we still have to accept it as a priori DFSG free unless we
hold a 3:1 GR to change it, and we have to consider it in our thinking
about other licenses.
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: