On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:04:37PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 08:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > > >> But the issue of whether or not they're distributable at all is > >> absolutely orthogonal to the GR. They have no bearing on each other > >> whatsoever. > > > > A work can't possibly ever be "free" if it's not even distributable. > > This is plain from DFSG#1. If the GR is labelling undistributable > > works "free", then it is in no way orthogonal to distributability. > > True. But when determining DFSG freedom debian developers (often in the > guise of d-l) can decide on an interpretation -- the courts don't really > care about that. When deciding on whether its legal to distribute at > all what we or the GR say is beside the point because it's not up to us; > it's up to the courts. We can have a GR claiming that the moon is made > of green cheese, and that doesn't change anything unless it has a > bearing on whether we decide a license belongs in main/contrib or in > non-free.
If a GR says something is Free, then it must be saying that either 1: "the work is distributable", or 2: "distributability is not relevant to freeness". A GR that calls a work Free is not orthogonal to distributability; it's intrinsically tied to it. (Limiting this response to the question or orthogonality, leaving the question of whether #1 is true or not to other subthreads.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
