** Mark Rafn :: > On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Gregor Richards wrote: > > > The term "Free Software" is open to interpretation, the DFSG is > > not the be-all-end-all of what is and isn't "Free". > > True. This is why I use and support Debian - it's the closest > thing I can find to my personal definition of freedom. >
<AOL>Me too</AOL>. And the process of discovering what is and what is not DFSG-free is another thing that attracts me to Debian. > > After all, according to www.gnu.org , the Affero General Public > > License is "Free Software," and I should think that history > > would give them precedence in making such a decision. > > Well, no. debian-legal is the place that Debian discusses their > definition. Nobody has precedence in defining our terms. > Actually, the ftp-masters and other constituted Debian authorities have precedence, and debian-legal is only their consulting body. But the process and the discussions on d-l are a beautifully democratic part of this process, and it's so good that actually the ftpmasters often (always?) follow the d-l consensus. > If FSF acceptance is your goal, can you not just use the Affero > license? > > > In response to "Unworkable, but you give an out in the next > > section, so this clause will never be used." How is this > > unworkable? Certainly many, even most, protocols this would > > apply to have this support. > > I mean that it's a requirement that is obviously non-free as there > are many applications for which it would be impossible. It cannot > be a requirement of free software. In your example, it's not > required, so it's not worth spending much time on. > It would constitute unacceptable restrictions on the production of derivative works, possibly combined with discrimination agains fields of endeavour. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
