> > Also, hammering minor point after minor point while missing the main > > point is argumentative and of little value.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:49:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I see; what sort of DFSG violations do you consider "minor"? Minor is relative, and depends on context. In the context of GPL compatability [which I think the current context is], "minor" means "things which would automatically be dealt with if the GPL incompatability issues were resolved". More generally, I think the most important issues for us are: [*] porting (to other platforms) [*] maintenance (especially security fixes, but not only) [*] translation (to other human languages) [*] legal distribution (especially for our mirror operators, b...) [*] interoperability (especially compliance with important standards) Secondary issues [these fall under "maintenance"] include: [*] modularity (providing good machine interfaces) [*] performance (not doing unnecessary things) [*] consistent documentation (lots of bugs fall in this category) These are incomplete lists. Minor issues in the general case are issues which don't advance important issues [such as the above] as causes. > > It's ok to say: here's the big problem, and here's some other areas of > > concern that you might want to think about. > > > > It's misleading to say "this is a problem" when we accept licenses as > > DFSG even though they have "this problem". > > Which licenses do we accept as DFSG-free even though they have "this > problem"? That's for you to say. > Please be careful about putting words in my mouth. Ok. > The GNU GPL is often a good choice for a license, but we are not an organ of > the Free Software Foundation, and DFSG-freeness is not predicated on > GPL-compatibility. > > At least, not as the DFSG is currently written. You could propose that > GPL-compatibility be a DFSG criterion. It might pass. I'm satisfied with DFSG#10, thanks. Note also that in this case we're talking about a license which represents itself as GPL compatible. > > > > you are pushing a line of logic that seems to make the GPL > > > > non-free. > > > > > > Eh? What's with this scare-mongering, slippery-slope argument? > > > > It's the literal truth. You've advanced a claim that "if the license > > requires something of value, the license cannot satisfy the DFSG". And, > > the GPL requires something of value. > > You have elided "in exchange for rights under the license". That's implicitly true of any license clause. Sometimes this is stated explicitly, for clarity, but if you violate a license clause you open yourself for legal action on the basis that you're not following the license. > One you undertake actions regulated by copyright law, something that would > otherwise be yours becomes the property of Best Practical LLC. > > This is not a characteristic of the GNU GPL. Agreed. And the Best Practical license declares itself GPL compatible. > The GNU GPL *does* require that you transmit something of value -- or an > offer to do so -- alongside *other* things of value when you distribute > them to another party. Best Practical's license has an invisible hand that > reaches into your life from afar and asserts property claims over something > that would otherwise be yours. > > This, to me is an essential and important distinction. Perhaps you don't > agree. I like this expression of the concept. > > > You either do not understand my objection (this calling into your question > > > your dismissal of it as "insignificant"), or you are deliberately > > > misrepresenting it. > > > > I prefer to think that you've expressed your concept unclearly. > > If I haven't expressed myself clearly, then it's quite likely you don't > understand me, no? Exactly. -- Raul
