Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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]
I'm aware of that. They're all insane, too. > 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 remembers incorrectly. Anyone with access to the debian-private archives is free to check this. The addition of the list of licenses was a direct result of Ray Dassen suggesting that a list of licenses we considered free be added. I can find no suggestion that the GPL would otherwise be considered non-free. > Raul provided further details later [4]. The vast majority of DFSG-related discussion (for better or for worse) occured on debian-private. Without checking that, large quantities of historical context are lost (though, to be fair, even /with/ checking debian-private there's large parts of context that are missing. The reason for DFSG 3 being changed from "You must have these freedoms" to "The recipient must be able to relicense under the same conditions" is never explained - Bruce is presumably the only person who knows. >> Without considering the GPL free, we have nothing. > > No one is calling the GPL non-free. People are suggesting that copyleft licenses are only free because of DFSG 10. That's a hideous fudge. Are you honestly suggesting that it is the intention of the DFSG to draw the line of freedom in such a way that the GPL falls outside it, and that the GPL is only accepted for pragmatic reasons? >> 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. This point was not controversial at the point where the social contract was written and voted on. Any controversy is purely down to people's interpretations of the DFSG changing. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
