| |||||||||||
Debian Weekly News 2004/20Debian Weekly News 2004/20Posted May 19, 2004 5:20 UTC (Wed) by piman (subscriber, #8957)In reply to: Debian Weekly News 2004/20 by JoeBuck Parent article: Debian Weekly News 2004/20 The DFSG is a combination of both the words contained within, and the opinions of debian-legal, similar to the US Constitution, which is a combination of the actual rights enumerated, plus Supreme Court interpretations over the years. You might not be able to find a clause that explicitly says "no, we don't like use restrictions" but this is something that Debian has agreed is non-free nonetheless. Now, like the Supreme Court, -legal's interpretation may change. But this happens rarely, and not without good cause. I don't know why you say the "main proponent" of this idea is Bruce; his email outlines what he thinks might be feasible, with no value judgement from him one way or the other. I would say the main proponent of this idea is currently OSI, whose "Open Software License" has such a requirement in it. RMS has not said anything of substance about what the GPLv3 will contain. > But there are too many Debian folks who reflexively yell "non-free" without thought. I don't think so. I think there are too many people who hear Debian say "non-free" and come up with lame arguments about why Debian should let non-free materials into its archive.
(Log in to post comments)
free for whom ? Posted May 19, 2004 10:38 UTC (Wed) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] Without taking a wider/longer and more balanced view, arguments about the respective merits of entirely reasonable but potentially incompatible license requirements for something to be considered "free" by different user groups are likely to descend into pharasaical legalism. Freedom for one person is not neccessarily exactly the same as freedom for someone else. For example, there is a potential conflict between:a. the entirely sensible business requirement that all the originators be identifiable to reduce the risk of copyright violation (freedom from risk of civil lawsuit) and b. the equally sensible requirement for distributors of politically sensitive software that originators are not required to be identifiable, when some of these may live or travel through repressive regimes which will imprison them for being originators of software these regimes disapprove of (freedom from risk of violation of human rights). It would be unfortunate for most of us if the Debian project as a whole were to be unnaturally contstrained by this kind of conflict over minor details.
Debian Weekly News 2004/20 Posted May 19, 2004 18:32 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Can you point me to any language in the founding documents of Debian that make "the opinions of debian-legal" into a consitutional court? Can you also explain how the opinions of whichever random DD decides to post on debian-legal becomes official? Doesn't it take a vote of the developers to amend the Social Contract, of which the DFSG is a part? Certainly the debian-legal place is where people go to discuss boundary cases and figure out what the DFSG means, but it's not like the US legal system; otherwise aspiring debian-legal list members would have to spend years studying a contradictory body of past list postings to understand Debian Law. If Debian just wants to declare war with the FSF rather than attempting to figure out how to resolve any disputes in a constructive matter, and, as a result, an unacceptable-to-Debian GPLv3 results, then, unless Debian persuades all of the upstream developers, Debian will have to fork the entire toolchain: compiler, C library, assembler, linker, must of the programs in /bin. As a member of GCC's steering committee, I find myself in a bind. I agree that the GFDL has major flaws, as does the Affero Public License. But to make any progress, we need to stop calling names and throwing FUD around (and yes, speculation that the FSF might do something harmful with future licensing is most certainly spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt).
Debian Weekly News 2004/20 Posted May 19, 2004 18:46 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] I say that Bruce Perens was a major proponent of the idea of closing the web services loophole mainly because he has discussed this idea verbally in a number of forums, though I only have hearsay evidence of that. I'm not saying it based on that linked message alone, though that was the first reference I found in Google.
|
|||||||||||