Re: Anti-TPM clauses

[Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa@gmail.com>]

Olive wrote:
> non DFSG-free. Debian legal is only a mailing list to discuss licenses, 
> by no means it is a tribunal that can take official decision. Only the 
> ftp masters or a vote can decide litigious cases. 

And whom do the ftp-masters themselves answer to? Quis custodiet ipsos 
custodes? Debian is answerable to the public, you know.

That said, I agree with the FTP-masters on allowing CC-3.0-BY and 
CC-3.0-BY-SA.

I feel such anti-TPM clauses are meant like copylefting, to ensure that 
no recipient of a licensed work takes away the freedom of a 
further-downstream recipient. I also feel that such clauses should be 
interpreted in the *spirit* of the DFSG rather than the letter. And I 
feel that the spirit of the DFSG is in accordance with any attempt to 
prevent anything that is against freedom.

I don't know what was discussed previously on this list about this, but 
that's my Rs 2.

Shriramana Sharma.