Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 01:09:43AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > The practical problems beyond the DFSG have always been something > > we commented in, but not a direct freedom problem themselves. The > > FSF used to do this too - see their criticism of obnoxious > > advertising clauses - instead of using advertising clauses like now. > > Free Software goals exist for real, practical reasons. Practical problems > *are* freedom problems. [...]
Often. Not all of them are. I think there are some of each sort in FDL. > > More pragmatically, "DFSG-free" was a stupid label for > > licences which helped add to the confusion over whether it was the > > licence or the liberty of the software and users that mattered to us. > > The license is--largely[1]--what *determines* the liberty of the software > and its users. The liberty is the important end result, but it's the > licenses that get us there; restrictions placed by licenses (or lack of > licenses) is what obstructs that liberty. "DFSG-free" is not a stupid > label; it was an effective, useful one. Not a stupid label in general, but a stupid label for licences. There's always a UW. Using the DFSG as some sort of licence certification scheme is a really bad idea and organisations that try to do so should die messily. Please let's concentrate on the software: it's worth looking at licences, but software is the thing of interest. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
