On Wed, 12 May 2004 09:27:49 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: > For that matter, the same applies to the currently-posted summary of > the GPL. At the moment, the summary just states that the GPL passes > the DFSG because it is explicitly listed in DFSG 10. It would be > highly preferable to compare the GPL against DFSG 1-9 as if 10 wasn't > there, as a consistency check: we don't want 10 to act as an exception > to the rest of the DFSG, only as an example of some licenses that pass > the rest of the DFSG.
Agreed, fully. I'm not quite happy with DFSG#10: * it lists some examples of free licenses, but it doesn't specify which versions/variants it's talking about (GPL v2 or another? n-clause BSD with n=? Original or clarified Artistic?) * it's subject to changes (some issue with one of those licenses might come up in the future, who knows?) * it could be misinterpreted as a rule, rather than a clarification by examples (sort of) I'd say that sort of information shouldn't belong in the DFSG: IMHO it would fit much better in informative pages such as http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ What do you think? -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program Francesco | Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom! Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO, | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0
pgp5XbTDLE6we.pgp
Description: PGP signature
