On Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 06:21:31PM -0600, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: <snip> > The only change I would propose to the DFSG is the addition of a > clause explicitly stating that Debian can pass a resolution declaring > any particular license "in" or "out", regardless of its actual > wording. This would effectively plug all loopholes and give Ian a > chance to talk us into throwing out particular licenses that he finds > repugnant even if they are technically in compliance. I would strongly disagree to this, if a massive loophole is found then we can patch the DFSG, but allowing us to up and decide that we don't like a license which fits the DFSG is (IMHO) not acceptable.. If its a true violation of the intent and instead just a massive work around the wording then we can change to wording, which seals the hole for the future.. If its NOT truly a violation of the DFSG and we just don't like the people who do it (IE The MS open software license which complys but we just don't like) then we need to take a BIG step back and take a look at ourselves, I'd like to think its actually about free software and not picking at specific people... Zephaniah E, Hull. > -- > John Hasler > email@example.com (John Hasler) > Dancing Horse Hill > Elmwood, WI > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com > -- PGP EA5198D1-Zephaniah E, Hull <firstname.lastname@example.org>-GPG E65A7801 Keys available at http://whitestar.soark.net/~warp/public_keys. CCs of replies from mailing lists are encouraged.
Description: PGP signature