On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 06:19:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > Please stop pretending your interpretation is consensus; it is not. > > Huh?
You said: > The problem with striking it entirely is that we then have to deal with > the people who misinterpret the DFSG to claim that the GPL is not free. I find this--based on recent discussions, and my understanding of your interpretation of DFSG#3--to be assuming that those of us who believe that GPL 2a and 2c fail DFSG#3 are "misinterpreting" the DFSG. There is simply no such consensus. > Change "applications" to "instances" and you'd be reasonably correct. > Though to be completely accurate you should have the additional qualifier > that it's the default instance of the GPL which is considered free > (this is "the GPL without any contry specific restriction" -- which > happens to be every instance of the GPL I've ever seen). It's still the GPL, and it's not a case of strange interpretations--GPL#8 is explicitly intended to be used in this way. I don't think any reasonable interpretation of DFSG#10 can make it say "the GPL is free, unless GPL#8 is exercised". (I think this is a bug in the DFSG; I agree that GPL#8, if used, is non-free. I'm not interested in the can of worms necessary to fix it, though, especially as it's never actually come up.) > > I find that to be > > exactly as meaningless as interpreting DFSG#3 in the same way, for the > > same reasons. I havn't seen anybody else with this opinion on either > > of these, so I'm not going to bother repeating the arguments. > > Can you provide me with a reference to a post which clearly presents > these reasons? > > Failing that, can you provide a keyword, phrase or other such thing > which would let me search for these "reasons"? You've forgotton the lengthy discussions we've had regarding "The license must allow some modifications" vs "The license must allow all modifications"? -- Glenn Maynard
