Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue

[Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com>]

Josh Triplett writes:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> 
>> But it seems that codifying the more common non-free clauses would
>> remove some of the ambiguities in the DFSG, and then people on -legal
>> would have less to hand-wave about. That seems to be a core
>> objection...
>
>No, I think the main objection is that many people don't want to
>consider the hand-waving arguments at all, and think everything that
>can't be precisely related to some specific DFSG point should be
>considered Free.

I think you're mis-stating my point. The default state should not
necessarily be that any license is Free unless proven otherwise. I've
never said that.

>I dislike the idea that every new clause would require modifying the
>DFSG, and that clauses which have not yet been prohibited would be allowed.

Again, you're exaggerating this. Some license clauses are clearly,
unambiguously not free. Others are not. If we've seen several
variations along the same theme where there is a clear consensus that
such a thing is non-free, _that's_ when I'm saying we should mention
it. Maybe as an example of a common bad license clause, whatever.

>With that in mind, what if we just amended the DFSG to include a
>statement at the top explicitly acknowledging the "Guidelines"
>interpretation, and pointing out that the DFSG is not an exhaustive list
>of allowable license clauses?  That way, it is clearer that the DFSG
>cannot be used as a checklist, and that general-consensus
>interpretations about a license are valid.

Fine. But what do you consider to be a consensus? Enough for a GR to
pass, or a simple majority of the small number of self-selecting
interested posters to debian-legal, many of whom are not DDs? That's
the point I've been trying to make for a long time here.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me