On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Don Armstrong writes: > >None of it, apparently, which is one of the reasons why the DFSG is > >a set of guidelines, not a mere definition. > > That's a convenient argument for ignoring whichever bits of the DFSG > you don't like, it must be said.
Not for ignoring, but for limiting the reach of them, or for recommending to ftpmaster to disallow licenses that are not free, but may not contravene the DFSG directly. [I don't think we've ever had a case of the latter, but I believe[1] it's in ftpmaster's power to do so.] > If you're going to selectively apply DFSG#5 as you see fit, then > consensus grounded in the DFSG is never going to happen. We may never have unanimity on a specific point of the DFSG without a definition capable of being applied by a machine, yet even without an exact definition we can obtain consensus. Some of us may think more restrictions by a license are free, and others may think the same level are ok, and still others may feel that the restrictions go to far. > It's grossly unfair to declare a license non-free because external > factors may stop people from exercising the rights granted by that > license. It's one thing with the external factors are acting alone. However, it's entirely another when the external factors are acting in concert with one of the tenants of a license. If the license is what is at the root of the problem, and the situation is common, then they license itself is at fault. > The DFSG clearly needs to be tightened up and clarified, then. Surely. But that's an extreemly complex job in it's own right, and one that I'm not ready to take on right now. Don Armstrong 1: If this ever came up, the secretary might get called on to clarify... -- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. -- Robert Heinlein http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
