Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] Debian should move all GPL sw to non-free

[Florian Weimer]

Cameron Patrick wrote:

> 1) To be DFSG-free, a licence must allow binaries built from arbitrarily
>    modified copies of the source code
> 2) GPL 2(c) disallows a particular type of modification to the source code
> 3) Therefore the GPL is not DFSG-free
> 4) But the GPL /is/ DFSG-free
> 5) Therefore either one of the above points is false, or the DFSG is
>    contradictory.

Not the DFSG is contradictory, the interpretation is.

Keep in mind that until recently, it was not clear if the non-free
section would remain part of the Debian archive (but not the
distribution).  Therefore, some developers were very interested in
increasing the value of non-free, e.g. by announcing their intent to
push various GNU documentation from main to non-free.

We know now that non-free will remain part of Debian (in some way), so
the GFDL debate loses some importance.  Maybe some of the FSF/Stallman
haters¹ are bother enough to put the matter forward, but I'm not sure.


1. I'm not implying that anyone who considers the GFDL a non-free
   software license is automatically a FSF/Stallman hater, but the
   general tone of the discussion was often not very friendly at all and
   covered in personal antipathy.

-- 
Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains: postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it,
voila.fr.