Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers
thomppj@thomppj.student.okstate.edu (Paul J Thompson) wrote on 14.11.97 in <m0xWMFS-0000YKC@thomppj.student.okstate.edu>:
> My comment is based on
> the fact that it is not possible to truely understand the concept of the
> DFSG and its relation to Debian until you experience being a developer and
> listening to the mail for awhile.
This is of course not true. The DFSG aren't that hard to understand for
_most_ people. (And in fact, I seem to remember when they were first
announced, some sunsite maintainer wanted to adopt them nearly
immediately, for example.)
> And then someone pointed me
> towards the DFSG and I thought they were a little harsh but understandable.
"A little harsh"?! There's nothing harsh there.
> But now, I have simply come to realize that they are entirely taken to be
> too much of some kind of Bible -- and in their current state, I don't think
> they are deserving of this.
>From this discussion, I'm beginning to think they aren't enough of a
Bible.
I wasn't very dogmatic wrt free software in the past. The people here
arguing against the DFSG are changing that - you make it clearer to me why
the DFSG way actually must be the way to go.
> Not that I am trying to say (or ever meant to say) they were all 100% bad!
> I just was hoping for a little thought of revision.
The arguments against the DFSG I'm seeing are sufficient to convince me
revision would be a bad idea right now.
MfG Kai
--
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: