Re: Draft new DFSG
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
> Jim> It's important that we aren't held hostage by an outside party.
> Jim> On the other hand, I'm not certain that we really need to
> Jim> maintain an "iron-fist of control" over the definition that we
> Jim> subscribe to.
> I disagree. I think it is imperative that we decide what we
> consider to be free. Every one else can, as well. What matters it if
> there are a plethora of converging definitions?
I'm not against us deciding what is free. IMHO, the DFSG2 than Ian
has proposed is much more readable and understandable than the
original. I'd just like to see a community-wide consensus on set of
guidelines (where "community" involves people outside of Debian).
This could be done after we draft the DFSG2.
> Jim> I do hope that Debian/SPI can eventually patch things up with
> Jim> Bruce/ESR/OSI. The current incestuous, distrustful situation that
> Jim> appears to be driving things is very embarassing to be associated
> Jim> with.
> Heh. I have been through too many of Bruces tantrums to have
> much faith in any of that coming to pass. Personally, after his
> previous set of missives to the project, he has been a prime
> candidate for kill files. Crudty and foul language we can do
I'll admit Bruce and ESR have acted immaturely in the past. On the
other hand, their OSI organization could easily be reformed by the
appointment of some older, more mature, well-respected board members
that could put the organization on the right track. They have
publicly stated that is what they are seeking.
We should help push things in that direction, rather than constantly
antagonizing Bruce and ESR.