[Bill Allombert] > The DFSG says 'the license must not restrict ...', it does not say > 'the program must not restrict ...'.
That's a fair point. I chose a bad example indeed. You still haven't given a reasonable answer to the real point, though, that being: "field of endeavor" does not mean "a field where some people in the field may want to do specific things, which other people outside the field may or may not want to do as well". There is nothing field-specific about "needing" to encrypt your hard drive. Some security professionals may want to do this, some may not want to. Some people who are not security professionals may want to do this, others may not want to. Nobody can say "the only way a security firm can possibly use Debian is to encrypt every hard drive of every computer in the whole company". To be fair, you are not the first person to misunderstand DFSG #5 and DFSG #6 this way, and try to apply them to things they do not apply to. It was a favorite tactic on the debian-legal list, last I checked --- which was some time ago. Compare the following two statements: - If you are XXX [DFSG #5] or your business is involved in YYY [#6], then you cannot use this software, or you cannot use it the same way other people can use it. - You cannot do ZZZ, no matter who you are, no matter what your business is about. Can you see the difference? The first is what DFSG #5 and #6 attempt to prevent. The second is not, although many people think it is. The problem is, if DFSG #5 and #6 mean what you think they mean, they effectively prevent _all_ license restrictions whatsoever. Because if you are creative enough, for any restriction ZZZ, you can find _some_ group of people _somewhere_, or _some_ field of endeavor, which you can tenuously link to _some_ reason ZZZ is a problem for them. Though the chain of logic can get quite convoluted, as we see in the present case.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature