Re: Ian's DFSG2 would harm Debian and Free Software

[Avus <top249@g26.ethz.ch>]

Good news, the Qt discussion can obviously end!
TT has just released their second draft, QPL 0.91, WITHOUT the patch
clause!

http://www.troll.no

Raul wrote:
> Avus <top249@g26.ethz.ch> wrote:
> > The public image is IMHO very important, and it should be considered
> > wisely, when and how you make announcements of this kind.

> I think the proper solution to the "public image" issue would be
> to accompany the new DFSG (presuming it's ever approved) with a 
> document outlining its history.

That wouldn't have helped much. Anyway, with the new QPL we have a
different situation. 
IMHO this shows that the OSS (and Debian) community is strongenough that
it doesn't need such strict rules as the DFSG2. 
Whenever a programme does have a license that doesn't fit properly into
the OSD/DFSG, people will either negotiate toughly with the company (if
the programme is important) or simply ignore it and take something
freer.


Craig Sanders 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.

I very much agree. This may kill some of the fun, and it treats Debian
developers a little bit like if they couldn't make the neccessary
decisions themselves (without strict rules).
Well, in Qts case, this won't be neccessary anymore... 
> 
> craig
> 
> --
> craig sanders

Avus