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. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature