Hello, Am 16.06.26 um 09:58 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 07:35:49AM +0200, Michael Stehmann wrote:... 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.But once there is a decision setting precedent, it is settled.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.Precedent becomes part of the rules. That's especially true in common law countries like the UK and the US where many DDs are - the body of law there is based primarily on precedent and not on statutes.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.It would be madness to discuss the same topic again and again and again. Even worse would be having to review the licences of all ~ 40k packages in Debian regarding which are affected by a change - and then telling maintainers that their years of work are no longer welcome in Debian.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.A GR is IMO necessary if someone wants to change the rules. But not if someone only wants to change the interpretation of rules. 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.The DFSG explicitely state that 4-clause BSD is an example of a DFSG-free licence, this particular interpretation is already written in the rules.
Where in the DFSG does it explicitly state that the *4-clause BSD* license is an example of a DFSG-compliant license?
Any interpretation of other licences that would result in 4-clause BSD not being DFSG-free when applying the same criteria would therefore be an invalid interpretation violating the text of the rule.Kind regards Michaelcu Adrian
Kind regards -- Mechtilde Stehmann ## PGP encryption welcome ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
