On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:50:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are > > > "Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being > > > guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract and > > > the constitution. > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:44:57PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > I very strongly object to that. > > > > http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/wrong/dfsg_guidelines.html > > explains what "guidelines" means here. It is the correct name. > > It states: > > It is not inconceivable that there may be works which contravene the > DFSG, but which are still free enough for inclusion in Debian. However, > a GR would be required (preferably one which modifies the DFSG > directly) in order for this to occur. No amount of arguing on the > mailing lists will accomplish it. > > This "should" seems rather unreasonable. There is no "should". It would be a "must", but there's no "must" here either. > We already have numerous cases of software which does not satisfy all > the points of the DFSG but which people still believe are free enough > to be distributed and/or used by Debian. GFDL licensed documentation > is one rather obvious example. Yes, GFDL documentation is a rather obvious example that supports my point; it was the reason for this document in the first place. This stuff has to get out of main unless a GR is passed permitting it to stay, despite the fact that some people believe it is free enough for main. > It's true that if your resolution passed we would need to pass further > resolutions to fix the problem you're creating, but at present the above > paragraph is simply false. FUD. (And irrelevant, to boot) > > > Likewise, Andrew has adopted some of his proposal from issues I've raised. > > > > I don't believe that is accurate. > > For example, after I proposed removing the Linux specific wording in > the social contract, you introduced the same kind of change in yours. I did that following the suggestion of somebody on IRC (I forget who), in December. > Likewise, after I changed "FTP archive" to "internet archive" in my > proposal, you changed "FTP archive" to "archive". I did that on my own, also in December. Both of these were present in the very first draft[0] that I made public (December 27th). That document was created over the course of about a week, based on the list archives from October and November, some suggestions from IRC, and anything I thought up on my own. Your first proposal was on January 10th[1], at which point you had included neither of these modifications - two weeks after I first published a draft that included them. Have you been taking lessons from Darl McBride? This is SCO's method. I did both of these things before you did. This is a matter of record, which I have just confirmed in the list archives (I went back as far as October 2003, when Branden first proposed a social contract update). Please do not migrate from generating FUD to outright breach of copyright (specifically rights of attribution). [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00029.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature