On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:21:15 +1100, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> said:
> 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.
For someone who is supposed to be a native speaker of the
language, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. There
was no indication that this was "history" -- this is my speculative
thought process trying to see if I can make the SC/DFSG more self
consistent than it appears to be.
> 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.
Well, our gold standard would appear to not be as fully
cop-acetic with the DFSG as I would like it to be.
manoj
--
Hindsight is an exact science.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C