discuss: Re: [Fwd: Re: LSM in Bordeaux]
Subject:
Re: [Fwd: Re: LSM in Bordeaux]
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
16 Jul 2004 06:02:29 -0000
Message-Id: <20040716054749.GB821@davespc>
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:38:42PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####
>
> > I'm sorry to hear that the DFSG still exists. A free license needs to
> > be restrictive to those who would like to abuse it. A free license must
> > restrict the license under which any modified work is issued.
>
> Your definition of "free license" excludes both BSD licences, the MIT
> X11 licence, the Apache licence, and all other non-copyleft free
> licences -- basically _defining outside the concept_ about half the free
> software in existence.
>
> Listen LDP core volunteers: I'm sorry I have a difficult time treating
> David's posts on licensing with respect, but honestly, this guy has no
> business representing LDP on the subject, and it's truly appalling that
> a person who is blatantly a licensing crank, and who (as past
> discussions have shown) doesn't even understand basic copyright law, has
> somehow defaulted to that role, as he represents you on the subject
> exceedingly poorly.
This is simply not true.
>
> I get the feeling he's your (alleged) licensing expert for no better
> reason than the fact that he's interested in the subject and the rest of
> you would rather not deal with it. Well, you can and should do better.
>
>
> > Otherwise one could modify the work and issue a very non-free license
> > for the modified work.
>
> The above observation is true but completely fails to support your
> conclusion: The public's ability to create non-free forks _of_ a work
> doesn't make the work itself non-free.
I made no such conclusion. You are just making this up. Or is this
just your conclusion labeled as my conclusion?
>
> > DFSG is flawed because it lists the things which a license may not
> > restrict.
>
> Feel welcome to post a suggested relacement to debian-legal. However:
>
> > For example, suppose the license is null (contains only the sentence
> > "have a nice day" etc.). Then one could claim that this license
> > doesn't restrict anything.
>
> To claim that would be to miss the point and attempt to play with words:
> Since the licence (which in effect would be the default licence inherent
> in copyright law, plus the additional phrase "Have a nice day") would
> then fail DFSG #1, #2, #3, and #4, it would be extremely far from
> DFSG-compliant.
Notice that I later on presented this view that you state above and in
fact stated that I considered it to be the correct view (although I take
exception to your word "extremely").
>
> Equivalant to your argument -- and equivalently devoid of merit -- would
> be a claim that DJBware packages with no explicit licence statement are
> DFSG-free because they "have no restrictions". That argument was
> soundly and definitively rejected many years ago, for amply documented
> reasons.
>
> > However, to clarify matters and be unambiguous, DFSG should state the
> > rights that the license must grant to overcome the restrictions of
> > copyright law.
>
> The reason this is not necessary is that it's assumed that intelligent
> people of goodwill will be interpreting it, not timewasters devoid of
> perspective.
Why not make it perfectly clear then and state this?
>
> > The other problems it fails to address is that of adding advertising to
> > documents and maintaining (more precisely not maintaining) websites with
> > unreasonably stale documentation (like 10 years out-of-date) which is
> > not labeled as such.
>
> This is not a licensing issue. (DFSG doesn't address the problem of
> bad-tasting coffee, either.)
It is a licensing issue. The right license could prevent this abuse.
>
> > The above problems are important for documentation and not very
> > significant for software. It's also a shame that the Open Source
> > Definition (TM) just used DFSG.
>
> Feel welcome to do better. I won't be holding my breath, waiting.
Well, thanks. I think I can do better. But first I want to make sure
that I have some support for my initiative to restrict advertising and
stale documentation.
> --
> Cheers,
> Rick Moen "vi is my shepherd; I shall not font."
> ####@####.#### -- Psalm 0.1 beta
>
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/
>
>
David Lawyer
