Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think if DFSG 4 had intended to grant licensors broad latitude to invent > novel ways of prevent such an inference from being drawn, it would have > been worded differently -- or, at least, the last two sentences would have > been.
Bear in mind that the single most important consideration in choosing the wording of the DFSG appears to have been to avoid removing useful software from main. If the Firefox trademark policy had existed then, I have no doubt that DFSG 4 would have been worded in such a way as to make it unambiguously free. The DFSG were not written with strong consideration for problems that may arise in future. They were written to deal with the problems that existed in 1997. As a result, they don't even attempt to deal with many of the issues we've faced since then. The fact that something is not explicitly permitted by the DFSG doesn't make it non-free. It just means that Bruce hadn't considered the issue back then. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
