Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I would say that any license that compels modifications to be under > > anything other than a copyleft is problematic. Copyleft is only > > allowed because it is explicitly grandfathered in by DFSG #10. > > Oh, come on. Any argument that implies that we only consider the GPL > free because we explicitly say it is is insane.
I am hardly the first person to bring this up [1] [2]. This comment from Raul Miller is particularly illuminating [3] As I remember it, DFSG#10 was specifically added to the DFSG because some people were saying that there were strict interpretations of the DFSG which could cause the GPL to fail, while others (including the author) were dismissing this as stupid. [In part, because they are "guidelines".] Raul provided further details later [4]. > Without considering the GPL free, we have nothing. No one is calling the GPL non-free. > Interpreting the DFSG in such a way that we can only ship a kernel > and basic userland because the GPL is explicitly listed suggests > that the interpretation is incorrect. This point is actually controversial. I am sure that many people would like DFSG #10 to be a noop, but it isn't obviously true. In any case, whether or not DFSG #10 is a noop has little practical effect. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/10/msg00251.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00558.html and followups [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00920.html [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00946.html
