On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:08:53PM -0500, David Starner wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to > > > be not? > > > > No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely > > considered free by our community are using this license. Thus, the > > onus is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free. > > Um, it fails section 3 (Modifications permitted) of the DFSG? A > strictly literal reading of the DFSG clearly prohibits Invariant > Sections. Any body claiming that the FDL (with Invariant Sections) is > free is basically proposing a change in the DFSG, or at least the > readings or scope thereof. I'd say the onus is on the people who want > to change the status quo.
you're not allowed to change the license or the author's name of a GPL-licensed program so, by your "strictly literal reading of the DFSG" that makes the GPL non-free. The GPL, BSD license and other licenses we consider to be DFSG-free all allow "invariant sections" - specifically, attribution, copyright, license, and similar administrivia. even where this isn't specifically stated in the license, tradition & custom within the free software community take it as a given that these things are not to be changed....but acknowledging that requires the application of common sense, which just proves that you're not playing the debian game. personally, i think that many debian people just like to argue pedantically for the sake of arguing pedantically. doesn't matter what the issue is, the main thing is that a good (i.e. long-winded and tedious) argument is had until everyone is bored into apathy. this practice is, of course, a wonderful morale booster. hip hip hooray. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
