On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 11:56:17PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 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.
I can deal with the line of reasoning that says "the 4-clause BSD license would be non-free, because forbidding anyone mentioning the software in banner ads, etc. is insane, but due to its widespread use, an exception was made for this license". (It means that there should be no fundamental issue with removing it from DFSG#10 with a GR some day, once the license is no longer so prevelent as it was when the DFSG was drafted.) I do have problems with "forbidding mention of the software in banner ads is horrible, but we have to consider the restriction "free" because it's part of a license in DFSG#10, which trumps all else (and therefore we must allow restrictions similar to it, such as an explicit "don't mention the product in banner ads"--a trivial extrapolation from the OAC, by my understanding of it.) Of course, the question of whether DFSG#10 is a grandfather clause (the former) or an interpretation guideline (the latter) is a long-standing one which will probably never be resolved. (I don't think it was initially *intended* as either, since--by my far-from-first-hand understanding--it wasn't even intended to be a clause.) (And of course, it's likely that some people would consider such an explicit restriction--not only "don't claim that we endorse you", which is fine, but "don't advertise your use of our stuff", which is not--to be completely acceptable; some people don't seem to mind heavily restricted software. These people are likely to be in the "interpretation guideline" camp, but not believe a problem exists.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
