On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 12:05:21 +0200 Solal <solal.rast...@me.com> wrote:
> The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do > not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves > issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited, > trademarks limited, etc. > > GFDL is free, because Invariant Sections are free if used in opinions > (nobody want peoples modify their opinion in a text). The GFDL prohibit > the use of Invariant Sections in technic texts. > > The only case where a software respects FSD but not DFSG is good. That > can be a software which prohibit the use of proprietary software in > aggregates. > This is good, totally ethical, and I think a license should do that for > protect uers from proprietary. > > The cases where a software respects DFSG but not respects FSD are bad. > For example, a software which prohibit the distribution of modified > versions respects DFSG if it authorize patch files. > But it's unethical. > > In some years, the patch will maybe be incompatible with the new version. > The Debian project authorize that (but encourage to do not do that, but > that's not suffiscient). > > The Debian project authorize too certain licenses which is too vague for > talk about free (the Artistic License 1.0, for example). > > The DFSG is really bad, too laxist and useless. I see that you don't like the DFSG. But as already has been said: We are Debian and follow our own contract and not a contact of some other project/company. I think if you have problems with the DFSG you should propose changes to improve it instead of saying we should drop it and follow someone else. PS: Please don't top-post. Regards Sven
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
