Re: Ian's DFSG2 would harm Debian and Free Software
--On Thu, Dec 3, 1998 8:07 am +1100 "Craig Sanders" <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> my reason for not wanting to change the DFSG is that Ian's proposal
> replaces a simple, easy to understand set of guidelines written in plain
> english with a complicated piece of legalese sounding bullshit.
>
> The DFSG as it is now is a set of guidelines. The proposed DFSG2 reads
> like rules. fuck rules.
Funny.
I actually find the new DFSG2 easy to read and understand. Possibly even
easier to understand than the DFSG1. And I like its structure. Ian
definitely has a point about 'agressive' licenses which could be designed to
fit the letter but not the spirit of the DFSG1.
I agree with the general idea of 'forbid more licenses than necessary, and
add exemptions where they appear to be warranted' rather than the more
generous 'allow licenses unless they fail these points'.
The reason I prefer this has everything to do with public image, in fact.
If a hypothetical license arises which satisfies the DFSG1, but is still not
free, for whatever reason, and we 'move the goalposts' then we will be
branded (as we often are) political and hypocritical. If on the other hand
we are in the opposite situation, where a license which is clearly free
enough doesn't meet our guidelines, so we grant it an exemption, then that
would probably throw a more positive light on us.
I just felt that since Ian's draft has provoked mainly negative responses so
far, I'd throw in my 2 euros..
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: