Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:43:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > So you believe that if we taught all developers about intricate >> > licensing issues, the number who would be of the opinion that DFSG 4 is >> > a mistake and that the GPL is only free because of DFSG 10 would >> > increase significantly? >> >> Probably, though I think that, taken proportionally, you'd see a much >> larger increase in the former than the latter. That may be because >> I think that DFSG 4 doesn't allow surprising modifications, which are >> fundamental to freedom. > > �"surprising modifications"?
Modifications which surprise the copyright holder -- code reuse which he didn't expect. >> > I don't wish to characterise people with knowledge and reasoned opinions >> > as extremists. I do wish to characterise people who believe that several >> > things that Debian accepts as free should be non-free as extremists. If >> > there is overlap between the two, that doesn't mean that I'm calling >> > them extremists because of their knowledge. >> >> Debian accepts several pieces of QPL'd software as free. I don't >> think the QPL is a free software license. Does that fact alone make >> me an extremist? > > There remains some amount of debate about whether the QPL is a free > software license. I don't think disagreement over individual licenses is > in itself a sign of extremism - I think the QPL is probably free, but > close to the line. But I believe that several things that Debian accepts as free should be considered non-free. That meets your stated definition of extremism. Do you have a better one, or am I an extremist? My goal here is to convince you to stop labelling your opponents in reasoned discussion extremists and thus unworthy of debate. >> Is anyone with a position on the GFDL an extremist, then, or just the >> losers? That really could have gone either way. > > If it could have gone either way, that suggests that the losers aren't > extremists. I think people who disagree with the DFSG (in either > direction) are probably extremists - there's enough room for different > interpretations and beliefs without actually having to disagree that > active disagreement suggests that your opinions are fairly extreme. But the DFSG is a compromise. I would expect that most Debian developers probably think it's a hair too strict or too lose, if they think about it at all. They're willing to accept it only because it *is* a compromise. I think that compromise is in the wrong place -- DFSG 4 was supposed to be a compromise with the rest of the world, but as far as I can see the rest of the world punted on that. There isn't anybody using patch clauses to release free software -- djb's software is still in non-free and will stay there, and the La/TeX people have been great about the renaming/patch issue. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
