Re: a right to privacy is not in the DFSG, therfore you don't have one

[Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com>]

Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 08:03:16PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> FFS, that's not what I was saying. You need to be a DD to propose or
>> vote on updates to the DFSG. You're clearly not a DD (nor in the NM
>> queue), therefore you couldn't do either. You could change that if you
>> cared sufficiently...
>
>I'm not proposing any changes to the DFSG here, since the DFSG already
>says that a free license can not impose arbitrary, onerous restrictions
>to modification and distribution.

Where, precisely? This, I think, is the crux of the matter.

>That's been Debian's interpretation for a long time.  You're the one
>that's claiming that Debian needs to hold a vote to deem new
>restrictions non-free (a discussion which we've had: it would cripple
>Debian's ability to remain free), not me.

I guess we'll have to disagree here. You think I'm being unreasonable
for wanting consensus and clarity in what we consider to be free or
non-free, while in my opinion you and others seem to take delight in
finding tiresome, nit-picky ways to misinterpret commonly accepted
language in licenses and declare them non-free.

I'll drop this here; I've got more than enough to do already, writing
more Free Software rather than wibbling about licenses. Make sure you
announce when you've managed to convince yourself that the GPL is
non-free too.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
  Mature Sporty Personal
  More Innovation More Adult
  A Man in Dandism
  Powered Midship Specialty