On 2004-01-23 01:31:15 +0000 Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote:
It's not clear to me how true the claim that the DFSG are not a closed set of requirements is. That's certainly the assertion of debian-legal. ANd as a reader and infrequent contributer to that list, I think there have been some fairly arbitrary decisions made by that community.
Can you please support your claim? I am a contributor to debian-legal and I have not seen that assertion. Question 8 of the DFSG FAQ at http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html seems to contradict you. Many -legal contributors have helped to write that document. There is also Andrew Suffield's explanation at http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/wrong/dfsg_guidelines
I'm sure there are occasional goofs. We're all human AFAIK. If you want to reopen discussion about a bad decision, please do. From what I've seen, -legal usually tries to fix bugs when found. But if a strong consensus formed that something was non-free, I think you need new information that didn't appear in the original discussion, or be really really sure that the first set of contributors got it wrong in a way that you explain.
I am disappointed that you have supported an amendment to the remove non-free GR which is mostly unrelated to the proposal.
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/