Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 11:56:03PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > If I understand correctly, you argue that DFSG #1-#9 should be > > interpreted in such a way to make the GPL free (because of, among > > other things, flamewars on -legal). That makes DFSG #10 a no-op. I > > argue that DFSG #10 enforces a particular interpretation. DFSG #10 is > > thus a consistency check. For those with the proper mindset, DFSG #10 > > is thus a no-op. I'm not sure that we're disagreeing about anything > > important. > > I can't tell if your position is that DFSG#10 is a grandfathering clause > or that it's an interpretive guideline. "Copyleft is only allowed because > it is explicitly grandfathered in by DFSG #10" seems to be the former; > that the GPL fails DFSG#1-9, but DFSG#10 overrides that. Here, "I argue > that DFSG #10 enforces a particular interpretation" seems the latter; that > the GPL passes DFSG#1-9, due to DFSG#10. These seem to be two very > different interpretations. > > Could you clarify your position?
Perhaps using the term "grandfathering" was ill advised. That would mean licenses with similar terms would be non-free. Rather, DFSG #10 enforces a particular interpretation. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
