At Sat, 26 Oct 2002 20:13:21 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:09:34PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I disagree. The DFSG speaks explicitly of the licenses of the software > > being distributed; software that may be illegal to use or distribute for > > reasons *other than the license of the copyright holder* has been > > regarded as DFSG-compliant, even when it was not possible for us to > > distribute the software in question. Compare non-US vs. > > non-US/non-free, for example. > > This is only true when the copyright holder isn't the one enforcing the > non-copyright laws to eliminate a piece of software's freedom.
What do you think about "a patent suddenly forces the charge of use retoroactively"? A patent does not need to claim their condition of permission to use and distribute. We can't decide whether it has ability to become ill-mannered license or not at present, so can we decide whether it's DFSG-free or not? I think in general "yes". In only case of copyright holder stated it's DFSG-free, then the patent becomes DFSG-free. But I also agree it depends on case-by-base judgement. -- gotom
