On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:44:32AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote: > I would really like someone to map one of the cited problems with the > RPSL to a stated requirement in the DFSG.
Debian's committment to Free Software does not stop at the DFSG. The "G"
in Debian Free Software Guidelines means "Guidelines".
As the DFSG FAQ[1] puts it:
9. Q: How can I tell if a license is a free software license, by Debian's
standards?
A: The process involves human judgement. The DFSG is an attempt to
articulate our criteria. But the DFSG is not a contract. This means
that if you think you've found a "loophole" in the DFSG then you don't
quite understand how this works. The DFSG is a potentially imperfect
attempt to express what "freeness" in software means to Debian. It is
not something whose letter we argue about. It is not a law. Rather, it
is a set of guidelines.
> We might be willing to engage in a conversation about changing the RPSL,
> but not in an environment where it is clearly subject to the whims of
> whoever happens to be discussing the issues on the list.
This is a straw-man argument. It is also inflammatory and insulting to the
subscribers of the debian-legal mailing list, some of whom have been
participating in license discussions and negotiations for years to the
mutual satisfaction of the parties involved.
Is this the sort of example you really want to set for Debian's future
communications with Real Networks?
> I would love to work with the Debian project on making sure RPSL is
> Debian-free. However, it makes it really difficult to engage the
> RealNetworks Legal department when there's a lot of discussion about
> personal tastes, but no mapping back to DFSG clauses. That just makes
> everyone here believe that there will be an endless stream of
> manufactured excuses as to why future versions of the RPSL will also not
> be considered Debian-free.
It sounds to me like you're constructing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why
do you suppose that the Debian community is predisposed to reject the RPSL?
What do you know that we don't? Is the RPSL *designed* to undermine user's
freedoms, yet sneak into Debian main because it passes the DFSG via some
sort of simplistic checklist analysis? If not, what have you to fear?
As a licensor I think you have some important questions to ask yourself;
you need not share the answers with the Debian Project, but doing so may
help us to understand your position, and if your desires are compatible
with the aims of free software, why they are.
* What do you want to allow?
* What do you want to prohibit?
* Upon which laws do you ground each of your prohibitions (copyright,
patent, trademark, trade secret, etc.)?
* Why are existing licenses insufficient?
+ Does the MIT/X11 license[2] permit things you want to prohibit?
+ Does the GNU GPL[3] prohibit things you want to allow?
* Is it important that works under your license be shipped as part of
Debian's OS?
* If a work under your license is accepted as Free by the Debian Project,
but something causes it not to be shipped in the Debian OS[4], would you
regard that as a failure?
[1] http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
[2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
[3] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
[4] Reasons for this include but are not limited to:
A) no one is available to maintain the package
B) the package is of insufficient quality to be included; e.g. violates
Debian Policy (for instance, ships executables in /usr/share/man)
C) the package is too buggy to be included; e.g., has a horrendous bug
such as the package preinst script running "rm -rf /"
D) the package is accused of infringing a third party's patent, and we
know of a litigitous patent holder who claims to own the patents and
sends nastygrams ordering people to desist and/or pay royalties
E) the software's functionity is outlawed by some jurisdiction that is
important to the Debian Project, such as the United States or
European Union;
F) the software itself is enjoined from distribution in some
jurisdiction important to the Debian Project, such as the states in
the U.S. Federal 2nd Circuit
Lest one accuse me of producing makeweight arguments, none of the above
are hypothetical reasons for a package's exclusion from Debian OS
release (or from distribution by Debian altogether). Apart from my
specific examples of a policy violation and horrendous bug, all have
been seen in practice.
--
G. Branden Robinson | To stay young requires unceasing
Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | unlearn old falsehoods.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
