Raul Miller wrote: >> > Given that "arbitrary functional modifications" would include illegal >> > activities > > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:59:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: >> It does. A license that tries to incorporate "you must follow the law" >> clauses is non-free. That is a longstanding and clear consesnsus on d-l. > > That's good as far as it goes. > > However, that doesn't go very far when dealing with issues of > interoperation and creation of derived works. > >> > I don't think that "arbitrary functional modifications" is a very >> > accurate representation of what the DFSG is really trying to allow for. >> >> I think you're badly wrong here. > > So, in essence, you think that the DFSG says we must disallow the > distribution of gcc if its license prevents you distributing copies which > have been functionally modified to better integrate with microsoft's > palladium?
If it explicitly prohibited that, yes, that would be a non-free license. Thankfully, it doesn't. > And, if that is what you think, perhaps you can explain how this point of > view has our users and the free software community as its top priorities? Because it's about whether it's free software or not. Fine point: it's not the "free software community" which is the priority; it's "free software". Releasing your software under a non-free license might conceivably help the "free software community", but does not help the priority of "free software". -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
