On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 08:48:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > I think we have two sorts of free licenses. One set, which includes BSD > and GPL licenses, which basically give users and authors the same rights; > and the other set, which includes the QPL and licenses with patch clauses, > which give the original author special consideration. I can't see any > reason not to put licenses that require sending copies to the author > into the second category -- free, but deprecated.
Just so my cards on the table, I don't like the practice of giving authors special consideration. Furthermore, I think the most effective way -- perhaps the *only* effective way for our "deprecation" of such licenses to be more than just lip service is to reject them as violating the "spirit" of the DFSG, or if you'd rather, as violating Social Contract clause 1 even if the DFSG wasn't comprehensive enough to snag them. And no, I don't have any expectation that everyone else on this mailing list shares my opinion on this issue. -- G. Branden Robinson | The first thing the communists do Debian GNU/Linux | when they take over a country is to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | outlaw cockfighting. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Oklahoma State Senator John Monks
pgpXPOME4jHz1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
