Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Garrett wrote: >> I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you >> suggesting that DFSG 10 is unfortunate because of the specific licenses >> it chooses (ie, it seems to endorse licenses that are free but >> non-optimal), or because it results in us considering the Artistic and >> 4-clause BSD licenses free? > > I believe he's saying, as many other debian-legal participants have > said, that it is unfortunate for DFSG10 to be interpreted as an > exception to the rest of the DFSG, rather than as a list of a few > examples of licenses which follow the rest of the DFSG.
Oh, I entirely agree. Clause 10 describes licenses that were considered free at the time that the DFSG were written, and so the DFSG should be interpreted in such a way that those licenses are free. It's difficult to make the argument that people were unaware of the practical issues with 4-clause BSD when the social contract was drawn up, so anything that suggests that it should be non-free is redefining our definition of freedom rather than demonstrating an increased understanding of the issues involved. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
