On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:12:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 03:26:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > > The problem, here, is that "GPL" really represents a class of licenses. > > > That class includes a [currently empty] set of licenses which prevent > > > distribution in certain countries. That set is non-free, but that > > > doesn't make the GPL not be an example of a free license. > > On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 03:46:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > So you're changing your claim to "DFSG#10 requires that the DFSG be > > interpreted such that some applications--but not all--of the GPL are > > free". > > DFSG#10 does not contain the word "all", nor any of its synonyms.
This is completely irrelevant; we're talking about your interpretation of DFSG#10, not its literal text. Please stop pretending your interpretation is consensus; it is not. I'm assuming, by your response, that "DFSG#10 requires that the DFSG be interpreted such that some applications--but not all--of the GPL are free" is, in fact, your interpretation of DFSG#10. I find that to be exactly as meaningless as interpreting DFSG#3 in the same way, for the same reasons. I havn't seen anybody else with this opinion on either of these, so I'm not going to bother repeating the arguments. -- Glenn Maynard
