Raul Miller wrote: > > So... what is the DFSG restriction that's violated?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 02:51:50PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > DFSG 6. > > Suppose I wrote a license that granted all the standard rights to use, > copy, modify, and distribute, but that placed some non-free restriction > on commercial distributors. That's non-free, just as it would be if I > prohibited commercial use entirely. You're begging the question here -- yes, it's true that if you placed some non-free restriction on commercial distributors, that that would be non-free. But you have to start with a non-free restriction, and that's what I'm asking you to identify. But, not all restrictions are non-free restrictions. For example, the GPL places restrictions on the charges which can be placed on GPLed software by commercial distributors. > Similarly, if you restrict the types of use of the logo in a particular > field of endeavor, that's a non-free restriction, just as if you > prohibited the use of the logo entirely in that field of endeavor, or in > all fields of endeavor. But commercial distributors can use the Debian logo -- they have to use it in an honest fashion, but I don't see any reason to treat fraud as a field of endeavor. If we treat fraud as a field of endeavor, then we'd have to throw out the GPL for its requirement that copyright notices be preserved. -- Raul
