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

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
of ?

> 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 !


Reply to: