On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 01:47:11AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: >>> ... and the OSD must become more like the DFSG, and proposed open >>> source licenses should be run past debian-legal. I'm not proposing >>> unilateral action on anybody's part. I'm prepared to compromise (or >>> rather, to recommend compromise to my board of directors). Are you? >> I am NOT prepared to compromise Debian's high Free Software standards. I am >> NOT prepared to accept RPSL-licensed software into Debian. In this case, >> "compromise" seems to me merely a word for "cave-in". > Of course. You cave-in on some things, we cave-in on others. Or > don't you understand what compromise means? Compromise means that you > give up on some things in order to get something else you want more. And this, really, seems to be the sticking point. Yes, the DFSG could stand to be improved; but I don't understand how these improvements will help, vis à vis the OSI. We do a lot of work to improve the DFSG, which though imperfect, seems to do its job ok as far as the people on this list are concerned; and as a result, we get... a slightly clearer document that still delineates the outer, not inner, bound of the main archive, that is still interpreted by humans. Is that all we get? What would the benefits to the greater community be if the DFSG were more like the OSD? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp35S75OAEmE.pgp
Description: PGP signature