[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft new DFSG

>>"John" == John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> writes:

 John> I wrote:
 >John> The only change I would propose to the DFSG is the addition of a
 >John> clause explicitly stating that Debian can pass a resolution declaring
 >John> any particular license "in" or "out", regardless of its actual
 >John> wording.  This would effectively plug all loopholes and give Ian a
 >John> chance to talk us into throwing out particular licenses that he finds
 >John> repugnant even if they are technically in compliance.

	You might as well throw away the DFSG. A dilution of the DFSG
 with that clause would essentially mean that Debian decides, on
 whimsy, what packages to accept or not to accept depending on
 unspecified criteria, like whether they happen to like the color of
 the eyes of the author, or not. 

	I wouls strongly object to this.

 John> Zephaniah E, Hull writes:
 >> 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..

 John> We already can do this.  It just isn't explicit.

	No we can't already do this. We do not throw things out just
 because we do not like the package. Remember the hissy fit bruce had
 wrt the purity package? Despite his objection to the moral depravity
 of the package, and we all said that the package was DFSG free, and
 we are not into moral judgements. 

 John> If the only thing stopping us from refusing to accept packages
 John> because we don't like the author is the absence of some words
 John> from the DFSG, we have bigger problems than this.

	One of the things stopping you from doing this is people like
 me You throw a package like that out, and I shall package it myself
 and put it in the distribution. 

	Having the DFSG ratify your personal preferences over an open
 and deterministic standard is, quite frankly, disgusting.

	We do not decide on whether to let people or package is based
 on their skin color, race, creed, or whther the developers happen to
 like them today.


 I have travelled the length and breadth of this country, and have
 talked with the best people in business administration.  I can assure
 you on the highest authority that data processing is a fad and won't
 last out the year. Editor in charge of business books at
 Prentice-Hall publishers, responding to Karl V. Karlstrom (a junior
 editor who had recommended a manuscript on the new science of data
 processing), c. 1957
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

Reply to: