Hello, Am 16.06.26 um 03:11 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
The DFSG are the fundamental definition of what we consider free software. Either a licence is DFSG-free or it is not.
There can be different opinions, whether a special license is DFSG-free or not. It depends on which arguments for and against are convincing.
Decades of precedent cannot just be ignored, especially not by suddenly declaring licences non-free that have been considered DFSG-free and used in main for decades without changing the text of the DFSG.
Law is applied by man. And man can change their opinion about the interpretation of rules.
Only the arguments that have led to a particular interpretation are significant. They can serve as a good basis for discussion. This does not rule out changes in views regarding their significance and importance.
A GR is IMO necessary if someone wants to change the rules. But not if someone only wants to change the interpretation of rules.Any exceptions (like the exception for patch licences in DFSG 4) would have to be added to the DFSG by a GR. Since the 4-clause BSD licence is an explicit example of a free licence in the DFSG,[1] that makes it even more obvious that a change to the DFSG to exclude 4-clause BSD would require a GR.
Only if someone wants to change the text of a rule to clarify that a particular interpretion is the (only) right one, a GR is IMO needed.
Kind regards Michael
OpenPGP_0x2E9A25E39D2862E7.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
