Am 15.05.26 um 09:52 schrieb Gerardo Ballabio:
Matthias Geiger wrote:
Well, the DFSG exits, we just don't have it mandating actions for packages
(which IMO should be discussed).
I'd like to point out §5 here [1].
DFSG §5 concerns the *license* of the program. "No Discrimination"
here means that the license must not restrict any person or group from
using, modifying and redistributing the program. It doesn't concern
discriminatory views held by the *authors* of the program.
About "mandating actions for packages", I understand that DFSG
violation bugs are RC. You aren't "forced" to do anything (see also
Constitution 2.1.1) but if you don't, your package won't be part of a
Debian stable release.
But this is not a case of DFSG violation.
Gerardo
I second that.
It's been always the same for decades some guys show up with such
requests to restrict free software
because they're unable to read American law English correctly and/or no
law basics teached in their edu systems.
If Geiger wants to restrict GPL or DFSG he is free to create his
own unfree software under his own restricted license.
y
tom
