On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:43:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > So you believe that if we taught all developers about intricate > > licensing issues, the number who would be of the opinion that DFSG 4 is > > a mistake and that the GPL is only free because of DFSG 10 would > > increase significantly? > > Probably, though I think that, taken proportionally, you'd see a much > larger increase in the former than the latter. That may be because > I think that DFSG 4 doesn't allow surprising modifications, which are > fundamental to freedom.
�"surprising modifications"? > > I don't wish to characterise people with knowledge and reasoned opinions > > as extremists. I do wish to characterise people who believe that several > > things that Debian accepts as free should be non-free as extremists. If > > there is overlap between the two, that doesn't mean that I'm calling > > them extremists because of their knowledge. > > Debian accepts several pieces of QPL'd software as free. I don't > think the QPL is a free software license. Does that fact alone make > me an extremist? There remains some amount of debate about whether the QPL is a free software license. I don't think disagreement over individual licenses is in itself a sign of extremism - I think the QPL is probably free, but close to the line. > Is anyone with a position on the GFDL an extremist, then, or just the > losers? That really could have gone either way. If it could have gone either way, that suggests that the losers aren't extremists. I think people who disagree with the DFSG (in either direction) are probably extremists - there's enough room for different interpretations and beliefs without actually having to disagree that active disagreement suggests that your opinions are fairly extreme. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
