Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 03:24:49PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > It's simply a fact that the DFSG allows these licenses even though
> > there are things in them people in Debian weren't particularly happy
> > with. These precedents beg the question, why isn't treating the
> > deficiencies of the new licenses the same way one of the first
> > things on our agenda
>
> For some reason, I can't quite parse the last part of your sentence.
Hmm, to rephrase the last part, why doesn't our agenda include treating the
deficiencies of the new licenses in the same manner (with exceptions) as one
of the first items? Anyway.
> But to address what I suspect is the point, in the process of writing
> new LaTeX licenses people in Debian were involved as much as possible
> in an effort to attempt to get rid of the need for the exemption in
> DFSG 4. Granted, there may still be other licenses that fall under
> these terms, but if you point them out, I'm sure that people will be
> willing to attempt to work with upstream to correct them.
That's nice to know, but it doesn't do much to answer the issue of lack
of exceptions for new licenses for the moment. We waited for changes in
the BSD license for at least two years, and for changes in the LaTeX
license for at least seven years, to decide to kick out GFDL doesn't
seem consistent...
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: