On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In any case, there's a perfectly good argument that for > > Debian to piss off the FSF is not a good idea whether or not they have > > a legal leg to stand on. I personally would be ashamed to lend my > > good name to their conduct in recent years, but YMMV. > > In this case, why do you continue to argue with what debian-legal thinks > is the prudent course of action for Debian to take, especially when you > admit that you may not agree with Debian's goals?
Although I think that argument's perfectly good, I think the arguments on the other side are sometimes better. And as I've written elsewhere, the reasons why one says one is making a particular decision can sometimes have bigger legal consequences than the decision itself. Although I have no direct stake in the outcome of these debates (IANADD), I care enough about Debian's well-being to have put rather a lot of time and thought into the matter. Now, where did I say that I don't agree with Debian's goals? I respect Debian's priorities -- Debian's users and Free Software. My own goals are rarely, if ever, in conflict with them. I am largely satisfied with the definition of Free Software given in the DFSG. But I don't believe that _either_ of Debian's priorities is well served by misunderstanding or misrepresenting the applicable law, by citing fear of legal action rather than courtesy to the FSF as a reason for seeking "GPL exemptions" from upstream, or by hostility to ISVs who are making an effort to play fair. Cheers, - Michael
