Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Ben Finney writes ("Re: French gov open license"):
> > More precisely, “pass DFSG” is not something we can ask of licenses.
> > Rather, the DFSG are for evaluating a *work* proposed for entry to
> > Debian.
> > […]
>
> I think this is rather disingenuous. […]
You've presented an example supporting my position:
> I have read the licence PDF and it is a reasonable licence for open
> data. But if used together with some program, it would need to be
> analysed for compatibility with that program's licence.
Yes. So, examining the license is not sufficient to say that a work is
DFSG-free; the work itself, along with license grant and the full
license text, are needed. Without those, “is it DFSG-free?” can't be
answered.
> But that doesn't mean that rejection for wrongnesses in the licence
> itself don't occur. There are plenty of examples. It can make sense
> to look at the licence and say "if the whole work was under this
> licence, and there were no other problems, it would be OK".
That's a pretty big “if”, as attested by many discussions over the
years in this forum :-)
I think we agree; I'm not sure why you think it's disingenuous, but I'm
attempting to avoid the common situation where we are asked to judge a
license text divorced from the work and without seeing the grant of
license. Those are crucially important — as is, of course, the license
text itself.
--
\ “Skepticism is the highest duty and blind faith the one |
`\ unpardonable sin.” —Thomas Henry Huxley, _Essays on |
_o__) Controversial Questions_, 1889 |
Ben Finney
