Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Maybe, but it is not what is written. Also i guess if you ask all > debian developpers about this, not 100% of them will agree with you > on what they read there.
What is written is that free distribution of aggregations must be permitted. Aggregation with one page, with one tiny little insignificant addition *is* aggregation, and *is* what is written. That's all I'm saying. I want to be sure that O'Reilly explicitly understandings this. > Also, i suppose you were already a debian developper when the DFSG was first > written, to say that it was interpreted such from day one, if yes, why was it > not written clearly ? I was around and payed close attention to the process, but I was not a Debian Developer. Why don't you ask the people who wrote it? > "altough the DFSG seems to say otherwise, we won't accept this licence, > because we don't consider it as free". The DFSG does not say otherwise. The license (as written) requires that aggregations be DFSG free; the DFSG requires that free distribution be permitted for all aggregations, including those such as (for example) Sun OS. > This would have been understandable, but this is not what did > happen, there were various different reasons for rejection given, > and a polemic about what is considered an aggregation, the absurd > proposal of aggregating an no content one liner and other such > things. The point is that the DFSG requires that free distribution as part of an aggregation be permitted. It does not allow *any* restriction of this, and thus, even a "no content one liner" aggregation is an aggregation, and free distribution of this must be permitted, according to the DFSG. I don't know whether O'Reilly understands this or not. > The correct way to solve this is to change the DFSG to say what we > want it to say, and not to resort to obscure interpretations to have > it mean what we want it to mean. Unlike you, apparently, I'm quite content with what it does say.
