Thank you for the detailed exploration of your understanding of these issues.
saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com writes: > Not to conflate the issues of patent licensing with copyright > licensing, but if […] , the Mono implementation should fail Debian > Legal's "Desert Island" and "Dissident" tests for DFSG compliance[5] […] Actually I think that, far from being a conflation of issues, what you've done is an entirely-appropriate (and, by my understanding of debian-legal, entirely intentional to the purpose) focus on the effective freedom of the work. What matters for the DFSG, if I understand correctly, is the effective freedom that recipients have under the terms the work is offered to them. Patents, copyrights, license terms: these matter only in so far as they modify the effective freedom recipients have in a specific work. So, by focusing on freedom, you've drawn attention to the distinction that, while the judgement of Debian's ftpmasters seems to have been that most patent restrictions are *not* to be considered modifications of the effective freedoms in a work, this is one case that may well be different. -- \ “I'm beginning to think that life is just one long Yoko Ono | `\ album; no rhyme or reason, just a lot of incoherent shrieks and | _o__) then it's over.” —Ian Wolff | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
