> > So, in essence, you think that the DFSG says we must disallow the > > distribution of gcc if its license prevents you distributing copies which > > have been functionally modified to better integrate with microsoft's > > palladium?
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:13:13AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Yes. From DFSG 6: > > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program > > in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the > > program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic > > research. > ... or for being used to promote Treacherous Computing. And what about DSFG 10? Because that's exactly the license gcc is distributed under. > > And, if that is what you think, perhaps you can explain how this point of > > view has our users and the free software community as its top priorities? > > As I said in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00307.html: > > Many Free Software authors would be upset at some uses of their > > software, but that does not mean that Debian should consider a license > > Free that prohibits use by opressive governments, or by DMCA enforcers > > (see previous item), or in "Treacherous Computing" architectures, even > > if Debian agreed that such uses are abhorrent. The FSF themselves say > > the same thing in their rejection of one such license, which prohibits > > uses for spyware and human-rights violations: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html . > > If Debian accepts conditions in a license that say you cannot use the > software for purposes the author finds morally wrong, Debian is then in > the position of making moral judgements about what conditions it finds > acceptable. Rather than go down that path, we reject all such conditions. It seems to me that point of view has some conflict with clause 4 of the social contract. -- Raul
