Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
At least we understand your sanity standard now ;) > > 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. <rant> Secret deliberations. Bah. This is why having almost any discussion on debian-private is a bad thing. </rant> > 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 links to statements that the Artistic license is not 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. My position is that there is a clear reading of the DFSG that keeps the GPL out. However, if you interpret the word "fee" in a strange way, then you can keep the GPL in. DFSG #10 forces that interpretation. So other copyleft licenses are also ok. However, that kind of munging is a very different beast from what would be required to make QPL 3b ok. > That's a hideous fudge. Don't look at me. I didn't write the DFSG. > 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? I would say that the DFSG uses imprecise language. DFSG #10 enforces a particular interpretation of the language. That is, DFSG #1 does not really mean _no_ fee, just not certain types of fees. > >> 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. Then why was there so much discussion over the Artistic license? Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
