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