On Monday 28 February 2005 11:16, Matthew Garrett wrote: > I haven't tried to formulate a precise definition yet, but I think that > the GPL's definition is stricter than we should require in general. We > don't have the DFSG because they provide philosophical freedoms - we > have the DFSG because they allow people to engage in practical > activities. If a piece of software allows someone to assert their > freedom to perform those acts without onerous restrictions, then it > ought to be free from a DFSG standpoint.
Bravo! That's so much better said, than I managed in my answer to Josh. The DFSG defines rights Debian needs for its users. The GPL is a permission granted by the author of a work. I think, there lies the fundamental difference. An author of a GPL'd work may believe it is funny to work through hundred different unnamed hexadecimal constants _and_ may legally license it under the GPL, because being hyper-intelligent has its priviledges. _But_ this doesn't mean that it is a good idea to bet on a project with a bus number[1] of 1. Regards, David [1] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BusNumber -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir Ãber ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15