Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > It passes the written DFSG. Not everything that passes the DFSG as > written is free -- that's why they're guidelines, not a definition -- > but I think it's fair for the null hypothesis to be "satisfies the DFSG > as written = free", and expect people who want to read between the lines > and add their pet "tests" to be the ones doing the justifying.
Actually, I remain convinced that a forced distribution obligation does *not* satisfy the DFSG, because it is a form of discrimination. You have articulated a difference between "cannot" and "don't want to", but as I think I showed, that difference doesn't bear up in this case.
