On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 18:40:14 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> You're saying that Debian should maintain an exhaustive list of
> non-free restrictions, that (presumably) adding to that list should be
> require a GR, and that no restrictions not on that list should be
> considered "free" until voted on.
>
> That's a horrible concept. New non-free restrictions are appearing
> every day; having to hold a vote for every new one would destroy
> Debian's ability to remain Free.
Indeed.
[...]
> Now, it may be reasonable to do the reverse: maintain a list of
> restrictions which are considered Free, and require a vote to add to
> it. People are constantly trying to find new ways to restrict users,
> so the list of onerous restrictions grows every day, but it's much
> less common that people come up with new Free restrictions.
I agree.
> (Henning
> Makholm proposed doing something like this, but he didn't propose it
> to have authority--that is, to replace the DFSG--and I don't think
> such a thing will ever happen, being too much of a change.)
And it was, IMHO, a nice and useful exercise.
Henning, did you managed to go any further than the initial version you
talked about a while ago here in debian-legal?
I haven't heard anything more about it so far...
>
> New restrictions that we havn't dealt with before should be viewed as
> non-free by default, and the burden of proof should be on the people
> trying to restrict users in a new way to prove that it is an
> acceptable restriction.
And again: I agree.
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpVmvw5kFLOj.pgp
Description: PGP signature