Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry wrote: > > >You're right. I did not notice that. That makes the analysis much > >simpler. The developers, in their wisdom, essentially changed DFSG > >#10 to add the GFDL without invariant sections. > > > Unfortunately, DFSG 10 reads: > * > **Example Licenses* > The "*GPL <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html>*", "*BSD > <http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license>*", and "*Artistic > <http://www.perl.com/pub/a/language/misc/Artistic.html>*" licenses are > examples of licenses that we consider "free"//. > > and not > > *Special Exceptions* > As a special exception, we consider he "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" > licenses "free".
I always read DFSG 10 as a sanity check on what kinds of restrictions are allowed. It would be nice if DFSG 10 could be inferred from DFSG 1-9, but they are simply not specific enough. For example, there are certainly people who do not consider the GPL and copyleft free [1], but DFSG 10 says that kind of restriction is fine. So this GR merely expands the range of allowed restrictions -- which sucks. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] I am putting aside the problems with clause 2c for the moment. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
