Re: {SPAM} Re: Anton's amendment
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:21:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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.
>
> But this does not automatically mean that the dispensation
> offered to the GPL automatically extends to any other license -- we
> would need to list any licenses like that explicitly, or modify the
> guidelines to not conflict.
what an amazingly absurd rewriting of history.
the GPL was *NEVER* considered to be any kind of exemption to what
debian considered free. rather, it was considered to be the "Gold
Standard" example of what a free license should allow. the GPL was,
and still is, the defining license of the Free Software movement. and
probably always will be.
even before we had the SC and DFSG, new licenses were compared against
the GPL to see if they met (or nearly met) that standard....and that
comparison against the GPL is still done today, either directly or via
the DFSG which was very strongly influenced by it.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: