Le 30/03/2015 15:10, Adam Borowski a écrit :
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:07:41PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
>> Le 30/03/2015 13:53, John Morris a écrit :
>>> Both
>>> the FSF and Debian claim to be the most 'Free.'
>> This is not my understanding. Debian does not claim to be more free
>> than
>> GNU. They just admit the reality that some non-free softwares are usefull
>> enough that they deserve to be put in their "non-free" repo.
> It's not only FSF accusing Debian of non-freeness (making the non-free repo
> available), but also the other way: at least two licenses that came from FSF
> are non-free. And Debian tries hard to look the other way and let bad stuff
> in: the AGPL is allowed despite failing both FSF Freedom 0[1] and the DFSG
> Dissident Test[2]. The GFDL, too, is allowed in principle, despite
> forbidding the user to chmod -r or use technology known as a "key" to lock
> the door to the server room, and only unmodifiable sections are disallowed
> in Debian.
>
> The FSF is unhappy Debian called them out for problems in their licenses.
>
>
> [1]. You're not allowed to reuse AGPLed code in an IMAP server, a networked
> lift control or any other scenario where there's no way for the user to
> download the source.
>
> [2]. Have a blogging platform that allows the general public to place their
> articles, and dissidents to communicate via steganography hidden in articles
> they post. Without the public access, suspicious messages stand out,
> putting the dissidents in risk. Yet the AGPL would force you to release the
> source, making it obvious for the authorities that there's steganography
> hidden there. On the other hand, the GPL requires source release only to
> fellow dissidents who run the software.
Thanks Adam to recall that this Copyleft matter is probably even
more complex that Copyright. I forgot it. It's a nightmare; I think
Debian has lawyers to manage all that stuff.
::
Re: [Dng] Devuan commitments - will…
