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

Re: Draft new DFSG

john@dhh.gt.org writes:
> No standard such as the DFSG can be completely deterministic.  Someone must
> be able to render authoritative interpretations.  I propose to make it
> explicit that the developers be that someone.  Would prefer that it be the
> technical committee?  The Leader?

How about this - I think it satisfies both you (john) and Manoj.  I
know it satisfies me, and I tend to side more with Manoj on this one.

The DFSG continues to exist as is.  (Though I did like a few of Ian's
enhancements - the explicit prohibition against revokeable licenses
and e-mail-me ware - there were some I strongly objected to and the
overall effect was to make things much more confusing)

We add a preamble saying both that: 

1) Although meeting the DFSG is a necessary condition for a package to
be included in the main Debian, not every package that meets these
guidelines will necessarily become part of Debian, and one shouldn't
view the fact that some program is not part of Debian as a statement
by the Debian maintainers that said program does not meet the DFSG.
We (the Debian developers) may opt to keep certain packages out of
Debian for reasons other than those specified in the DFSG.


2) In case of a dispute as to whether or not a package is free
according to the DFSG, the Debian developers are the final authority.

Now, this splits the notion of when the judgement of the developers
will be used into two nice distinct categories, ones which I think all 
concerned can agree on.

(Now, whether we ever should keep a package out of Debian that meets
the DFSG is a different case, but I think that there should be no
problem with our stating that we might do that.  Certainly, no
DFSG-free package is going to make it into Debian if no developer
packages it.)

Reply to: