Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: > You are ignoring the *substance* of DFSG and focusing on its literal > wording.
You have no argument why the literal meaning differs from the substance of #3. You can't, because it doesn't. Go read the rationale for #3. > > No. A license may treat different catagories of people differently so > > long as each category's freedoms fit under the DFSG. For example, > > this license abides by the DFSG: "This software is licensed under the > > GPL and the BSD licenses. If you are an educational institution, you > > may abide solely by the terms of the BSD license. Everyone else must > > abide by the GPL." > > > > It would be ridiculous to say that it didn't. > > Right, Okay, good. So, we have established and agreed that a license doesn't discriminate under the DFSG even if it treats different parties differently SO LONG as all the treatments comply with the DFSG. > but the restriction that it adds for the other group (a > requirement of public publication) is one that we have *never* > recognized as DFSG-free. I know, and you can't point to anything in the DFSG that prohibits it. You just *know* it to be true, as an article of faith. So why point to the DFSG? Why say DFSG-free when what you really mean -- what the real test is -- is debian-legal-free. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | A government does enough Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | wrong to offset what it 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | does right. Better that Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | it should do less.
