Re: [Gnu-arch-users] re: licensing question

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 11:37:47PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Suffield <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>     Andrew> Well, this isn't strictly a restriction on redistribution,
>     Andrew> it's a one-off hoop-jumping requirement. The distinction
>     Andrew> lies between these two licenses:
> 
> A one-off restriction is still a restriction if you've only got one
> copy.  That copy is *not* free, and control of individual copies is
> the fundamental mechanism of copyright.

Yeah, like I said, I don't think the argument is right and it's easy
to argue against it. That doesn't actually get you anywhere except a
round of "that's just your opinion".

> I'm really surprised that that kind of sophistry persuaded anybody who
> matters at Debian.  Even if it persuades a court, I don't see why
> Debian should shy away from labelling such restrictions "non-free".

Institutional difficulties in working out who matters. There's a small
group who understand the details of licensing issues and believes
Debian should be free software, there's another group who believes
that Debian should ship anything that might be legal and get rid of
the inconvinient 'non-free' distinction, a somewhat larger group who
don't understand licensing issues, and the second group keep asking
them questions like "Do you think mozilla should be considered free? 
[Yes/No]" and calling that a majority opinion, and the vast majority
of the project doesn't get involved at all.

I'm pretty happy to be out of it.