Re: [tlug] Richard Stallman (FSF) in Tokyo Wed, Oct 24th

["emiddleton@example.com" <emiddleton@example.com>]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> However, it is quite arguable that GPLv3 should be DFSG-unfree and not
> OSI-certifiable because it explicitly discriminates against a specific
> field of endeavor.  Namely, "making 'technical measures' protectable
> under the DMCA."
>
> I can't imagine either Debian or the OSI would decertify the GPLv3 for
> that, but IMO there's no technical reason why they shouldn't.
>   

There is a precedent, and a workable solution.  Debian could just fork
pre-GPLv3 versions[1] of existing software and throw everything else in
non-free.  I remember similar issues when the GNU Free Documentation
Licenses was found to be incompatible with DFSG[2].

Edward

1. The appropriate wording being "or (at your option) any later version."
2. http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001