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

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

olive <olive.lin@versateladsl.be>
> However the DFSG is there to juge if a license is free or not and these 
> guidlines must be used to juge the freeness of a software. A lot of 
> zealots in this list just invent way to reject licenses they don't like 
> even if these complies with the DFSG; or invent some discriminations.

The DFSG are there to help decide whether *software* is free or not.
You can often make most of the decision by considering the licence,
but not always. debian-vote is not known as a hotbed of rejecting
licences, but the FDL does not comply with DFSG.

Any work under the FDL alone doesn't follow DFSG, like most
other adware licences: it forbids many reasonable derived works
(s1 para3/4, s4), over-protects the integrity of the author's
source (s2, s3, s4) and discriminates against fields of endeavour
(s1 para3/4 when combined with any invariant section must
discriminate against one or more of history, law, commerce,
philosophy, ethics or politics - the work can no longer be used
for whichever purposes are covered by the invariant section;
if it were, the invariant section would no longer be secondary,
as its contents "could fall directly within that overall subject"
and so the FDL could not be satisfied). Discrimination against
the field of commerce has always been a fairly uncontroversial
way to fail to meet DFSG 6, as far as I know, and the FDL does it.

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: