On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 12:11:42PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050205 11:55]: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >For this reason, Debian should reject choice of venue clauses as non-free. > > >At best, they give an underdog copyright holder a small advantage while > > >enforcing his rights, but at worst they give a hostile copyright holder a > > >large advantage while persecuting the Free Software community. > > > This is an interesting opinion, but I can't see which part of the DFSG > > supports it. > > The DFSG also doesn't tell us that we should not distribute too buggy > software - but we still try to avoid release such packages.
That's not the issue. The DFSG also doesn't explicitly tell us that licenses which say "if you wish to modify this software, pet a cat", but they're clearly non-free. (I've already explained how this relates to the DFSG, despite the DFSG not attempting to exhaustively list non-free restrictions.) People like Marco keep saying "the DFSG doesn't say it explicitly, therefore it should be allowed", which is irresponsible, favoring getting their warez in main (despite the latest ugly restrictions) over keeping Debian Free. Instead, he and others should be arguing why they think a clause *should* be allowed: why the restrictions it places on users are not onerous. If they can't do that, they're essentially saying "I know it's an abusable, overreaching restriction, and I can't argue otherwise, but it should go in main anyway!" -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
