Re: Proposed solution to free/non-free Debate -- Please Read!
Hi,
Sorry, I think I at least am confortable with the DFSG as it
stands, and I am not convinced that we need to change to suit authors
of packages that do not fit the DFSG.
I am sorry if you were not around when the DFSG was ratified
by a landslide, and that we were not more upfront with putting it in
the way of new maintainers so they knew what they were in for. This
has since been rectified.
I do agree with you that the DFSG should have a more prominent
place on our web page, and elsewhere.
I am not prepared to keep changing the dfsg every couple of
months, or for every set of new people that come aboard. Before you
start any formal process of debate on the DFSG, take a strw poll. So
far, I have heard of three (3!) people who want to change, and about
9 who are happy with it the way it is. Given the ratification of the
DFSG just four months ago, I am inclined to believe that the silent
majority have not flip-flopped int eh last four months.
Do you have a mandate to lead this change?
get the madate first before wasting the time (yours, and of
the others on this list). Ask for a vode on debian-private.
manoj
ps. If we do change the DFSG, I vote we make the
no-modified-source-without-rename packages non-free as well. I do
think, now, that the DFSG is not free enough.
--
Even God cannot change the past.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: