On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 02:44:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > 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.
Good for you? > 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. You haven't made any arguments that don't apply equally well to the GPL as compared to the BSD. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
pgplzLzuKPweu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
