Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
there are several licenses which have some small problems (choice of
venue, etc...) and that are declared non-free; Debian should make a
clearer difference between small and big problems.
Licenses which do not comply with the DFSG do not comply with the
DFSG, and therefore cannot be included in main. There are clauses
which only just barely cross the line, and there are clauses which
can't see the line at all.
When we discuss them, we can discern between the two cases, but it's
not appropriate for Debian to bend its own guidelines to allow in
works which do not meet the requirements of the DFSG simply because we
think it would be nice to include them.
Once again if a license clearly fail the DFSG I will never advocate to
include it. But there are a lot of case where this is not the case and I
think people claim that the license violates the DFSG just because they
do no like it. There is no rule which say that "every bits of a file can
be modified"; but there are law which says that you must be able to use
your freedom. Debian has already accepted resctriction similar to the
GFDL (acknoledgement of the BSD license etc,...); the invariant sections
are in nature not more (these are acknoledgement for the GNU project;
and yes it a bit longer).
By the way, there are licenses which in my opinion more clearly violates
the DFSGL and are nevertheless accepted. I think of a license of a file
in x.org which prohibit to export it to Cuba. This seems clearly be a
discrimination and moreover it fails the dissident test (even if in this
case the dissidant might be a U.S citizen; not a chinese one). For
someone (like me) living outside the U.S. this is even more flagrant
because to export goods to Cuba is perfectly legal from my country.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
