Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Front page to wiki now modifiable again

[Aaron Bentley]

Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 10:53:48PM -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:

> > I don't think it's impossible for a license to be crafted that 
> > technically met the DSFG criteria, but didn't reflect the spirit of Free 
> > Software.
>
>
> Speaking as one of the people who regularly makes the determination of
> whether a license meets the DFSG, I do. Also see
> http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/wrong/dfsg_guidelines which
> partially deals with this; "technically met the DSFG criteria"
> indicates a misunderstanding of how the DFSG is applied. You are
> thinking of the OSD, again.

Would you make your decisions any differently if you were using the OSD 
instead of the DFSG?

I don't think FSF rejection of a DFSG-free license is at all likely, 
it's just that "impossible" is too strong a word.  For instance, there 
is a very remote possibility that I am really an octopus.

> > That's not what I'm saying, though.  I'm saying if a license fails to 
> > meet the DFSG, it must also fail to meet the OSD.
>
>
> This is empirically incorrect. There have been licenses which OSI have
> officially approved as meeting the OSD which were rejected by Debian
> for not meeting the DFSG. I already said that once. I don't know where
> you got this idea from.

Alright, but I still say these stem from differences in interpretation 
of the OSD and DFSG, not differences between the OSD and DFSG.

Anyhow, I don't see the GFDL on the OSI-approved list, do you?

http://opensource.org/licenses/

Aaron