On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:08, David Starner wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not? > > > > No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely > > considered free by our community are using this license. Thus, the onus > > is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free. > > Um, it fails section 3 (Modifications permitted) of the DFSG? A strictly > literal reading of the DFSG clearly prohibits Invariant Sections. Any > body claiming that the FDL (with Invariant Sections) is free is > basically proposing a change in the DFSG, or at least the readings or > scope thereof. I'd say the onus is on the people who want to change the > status quo.
Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least. Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given that the whole ball of wax would depend on a non-free compiler. So, we change either the status quo, or the DFSG, or issue clarifications on why the status quo (with GFDL-licensed components) doesn't violate the DFSG. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
