Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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. > > He provided a link to one from ESR. At the time, ESR was engaged in a > bitter argument over the freeness of ncurses. It had been forked without > his permission, and he wanted to tighten the license to prevent that > from happening again. Debian weren't too keen on that. It's a point used > in an argument, rather than a firmly held opinion.
Hmm. Reading it more closely, I think that ESR was just blowing smoke. I will have to concede this point to you, especially since I don't have access to -private. > >> 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 doesn't really work, though. In other cases, the fudges to make it > clear that licenses are free occur in the first 9 clauses. The artistic > license is free because of DFSG 1's phrasing, not because it's > explicitly listed in DFSG 10. I think we're just going to have to disagree on this point. When I read DFSG #1 in a straightforward manner, I don't find that copyleft's are allowed. It is only because of DFSG #10 and that a good fraction of Debian is based on GPL'd software that I can contort DFSG #1 to allow it. > >> 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. > > Right. And, inevitably, it's left up to Debian to interpret what is > meant by "fee". I don't think it's obvious that QPL 3b is more of a fee > than some of the GPL's requirements. Other people's opinions differ. I don't see how they are similar. For historical context, at the time Jim Pick certainly thought it was a problem [1], although Bruce Perens thought it was fine [2]. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1997/06/msg00191.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1997/06/msg00190.html
