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

"New DFSG"

Keep the licence as it is: sort out minor diferences in a spirit of 
cooperation with Bruce/ESR.  We already can say - "We're Debian,
interpreting our own guidelines, and for us Netscape is non-free" or
we can point to Pine and building from source to show that we've read
and abide by the UofW licence.  There will always be stuff that goes
into other distributions that we're not going to package - similarly,
becuase of the way we've built a quality-tested distribution, some
people rely on Debian for their source to build .rpms from etc.

We can't be all things to all men: despite the elegantly argued
rationale for rejecting the patch clause - it works at the moment,
if it isn't broken don't fix it.

We already have a) a huge number of packages and

b) A reputation for being scrupulous about licences

Don't add a reputation for 

c) Arguing about the merits of DFSG1 vs. DFSG2

Andreas Jellinghaus is, however, wrong IMHO - I don't think we throw out
the baby with the bathwater and just abandon the DFSG in favour of the 
Open Source licence.  DFSG was here first - if it meets with the approval
of 300+ developers it doesn't need moving to fit as yet undefined criteria
which might happen to OpenSource if pressure is put on to relax it.

I'm a new developer but have lurked here for a few years so recognise many
of the issues (and am a law graduate so a wouldbe lawyer).  This is just
IMHO and my 0.2 Euro.


Reply to: