Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4
Ian Jackson wrote:
> We currently have guidelines expressed by spirit and spend ages
> arguing about them, even to the point of having political fights about
> them with other projects. This is not good !
I think you're wrong. I think a review of the list archives will show
license questions are resolved quickly.
The issues that arn't resolved quickly, like the KDE/QT thing are those that
involve interactions between different licences. We didn't realize the bad
interactions between KDE and QT for a long time - for nearly a year -
because it's the result of a complex interaction between the 2 licenses.
The fact is, licenses are legalese, and no DFSG of any sort is going to
help us cut through that. But we do understand the DFSG and exactly what it
stands for, and once we think we understand what a given license is saying,
there is no difficulty in applying the DFSG to it and getting an answer.
I don't see this endless wrangling over unclear wording in the DFSG you and
others are talking about. What I've seen, since the DFSG was released is
people saying "this license violates points 3 and 6 of the DFSG", and others
understanding exactly what they mean.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: