On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 18:40:14 -0500 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're saying that Debian should maintain an exhaustive list of > non-free restrictions, that (presumably) adding to that list should be > require a GR, and that no restrictions not on that list should be > considered "free" until voted on. Or it should be documents offically somwhere that debian-legal does have the authority to impose new restrictions at their discretion, and the wording of the social contract changed. > That's a horrible concept. New non-free restrictions are appearing > every day; having to hold a vote for every new one would destroy > Debian's ability to remain Free. You're saying that Debian must allow > a license that says"you must eat three live rats before modifying this > software", since the DFSG doesn't mention rat-eating. (If you think > otherwise, I'm very interested to hear your explanation.) I would expect you to claims its non-free because it discriminates against vegitarians. Clause 5+6 are so generic they are meaningless, I could equally argue that the GPL violates the DFSG because the GPL discriminates against GPL violators. Those clauses undermine any judgments based on the DFSG, and i think you should expect to come under fire if you use it as the strongest reason to rule something as non-free. > Now, it may be reasonable to do the reverse: maintain a list of > restrictions which are considered Free, and require a vote to add to > it. People are constantly trying to find new ways to restrict users, > so the list of onerous restrictions grows every day, but it's much > less common that people come up with new Free restrictions. (Henning > Makholm proposed doing something like this, but he didn't propose it > to have authority--that is, to replace the DFSG--and I don't think > such a thing will ever happen, being too much of a change.) Thats sounds like a good idea to me. > New restrictions that we havn't dealt with before should be viewed as > non-free by default, and the burden of proof should be on the people > trying to restrict users in a new way to prove that it is an > acceptable restriction. But how do you proove a new restriction is acceptable... I think if a licence has been accepted as complying with the Open Source Definition, then the burden of proof should be on on the people who want it excluded from debian. > And again, I'll point out that it's curious that, instead of arguing > why these restrictions should be allowed, you're instead screaming > "you have no authority, so it doesn't matter!" and refusing to discuss > the real topic. Do you actually care about the subject of choice of > venue at all, or are you just trying to undermine Debian's ability to > reject onerous restrictions? After listening to what you say, i conclude that wether COV is DFSG free is very open to interpretation, i expected a more concrete reason. There is no point even considering the question of wether COV means non-free if there is nothing firm to judge it against. Thats why i havent discussed it further. Glenn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
