On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 07:26:28AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > > You should provide a more significant objection than "your modifications > > > have value". > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 04:26:59AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I don't think it's an "insigificant" objection. > > I do. > > The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and instead of focussing > on that,
Why shouldn't we present license analyses that are as comprehensive as we can make them? Do you think it's a good idea to get involved in a series of cycles with people? "Thanks for fixing that. Here's the next problem. Thanks for fixing that. Here's the next problem. Thanks for fixing that. Here's the next problem. Thanks for fixing that. Here's the next problem." This sort of situation is very likely to lead people to feel we're performing some sort of bait-and-switch with them. Fundamentally, either they care about Debian's guidelines and about their works being in Debian main, or they don't. I see no reason not to be fully candid, and air all of our concerns with a given license at once. Does it do anyone any good if they budge on one non-DFSG-compliant point but leave another one in the license because "that's going too far"? Wouldn't our investment of time be better spent working with other licensors who are willing to use DFSG-free licenses? To anticipate one of your objections, I think what makes things slow is the cycle and the go-round, not the analysis process itself. As evidence I submit the LPPL and GFDL discussions. > you are pushing a line of logic that seems to make the GPL > non-free. Eh? What's with this scare-mongering, slippery-slope argument? You either do not understand my objection (this calling into your question your dismissal of it as "insignificant"), or you are deliberately misrepresenting it. I hope it's the former, because this objection seems a total non-sequitur to me. > > > "Distribution of source", as required by the GPL, has value, so your > > > logic would this mean that the GPL is non-free. > > > > No, because modification is not distribution, and I cannot copyright my act > > of distribution[1]. > > You can't copyright gold, either. I would agree that it is important that licensors not reach for more than they can grasp when drafting their licenses. (If that's not what you're trying to say, perhaps you could eludicate.) -- G. Branden Robinson | It's extremely difficult to govern Debian GNU/Linux | when you control all three branches [EMAIL PROTECTED] | of government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John Feehery
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
