Re: Draft new DFSG
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Draft new DFSG"):
> I have a general problem with this draft, as in a number of cases it
> does not depreciate current practices but cancels them outright.
I'm only aware of two things that I deliberately didn't put in: the
patch clause from the old DFSG, and blanket permission for the
obnoxious advertising clause. What other examples are you thinking
> Regardless of the merits of the final result, I don't think this is
> a good idea.
Fair enough. However, it is slightly difficult to difure out what the
changes are, since the existing DFSG is so vague.
> Also I think that we should supply a rationale when we depreciate
> current practice.
You're right. I shall try to write some rationale for my next draft.
Noone has yet mailed me to say `my package has restriction X which is
OK but you didn't list'. Please check your packages !