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

Re: DFSG: Do we really need a rewrite? or Just clarifications? (was Re: DFSG2: The patch exception)



On Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 12:02:52AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> 
>  Ian> Several people have complained that some important existing
>  Ian> software (notably TeX) has a patch requirement.  How about if we
>  Ian> have a special grandfather exception for this ?
> 
> 	Umm, no. I would rather go with the deprecated/discouraged
>  commentary on patch cluses, and be consistent with that, rather than
>  breaking the guidelines with grandfather clauses just because some
>  people peole happened to like the software in question. That goes
>  against the stated goal of setting forth a clear set of guidelines. 

Definitely agreed.
> 
> 	I woulds also like to state for the recoord that I find the
>  DFSG far easier to read than the current draft (I dislike legalese),
>  and that makes for more, rather than less, confusion about
>  licences. 

Also agreed, the fact that I've been able to look over a few licenses
myself well looking at the DFSG, and been able to then point out where
the license violates the DFSG, is very important to me...
> 
> 	There are a number of people, myself included, who feel queasy
>  about such a drastic rewrite of the DFSG. The reasons cited for the
>  rewrite have been that it is too hard to determine whether is license
>  is in compliance or no, and that the DFSG is quite vague in parts,
>  and needs clarification.

Yes, the DFSG needs clarification, NOT a rewrite, and even worse not a
rewrite which is much harder to read and understand then the DFSG1..
> 
> 	If we needs must clarify further, I would prefer leaving the
>  *GUIDELINES* as they are (the DFSG), and calling the new document
>  DFSC (the debian free software criterion), and state in the social
>  contract that the DFSG are clarified by a working document, the DFSC,
>  and the DFSC is meant to be a rules based implementation of the
>  spirit of the DFSG, and mention that Debian actually follows the
>  DFSC when determining whether to include packages in Debian.

*wince*, leaving us with two, possabley conflicting in areas,
documents, adding confusion..
> 
> 	Thsi would allow us to tweak the DFSC, and try to 
> 
> 	I would rather not have to go through the process of
>  explaining our rewrite of what is increasing a mainstream, defining
>  document for free software.

Agreed..

Zephaniah E, Hull.
> 
> 	manoj
> -- 
>  Without coffee he could not work, or at least he could not have
>  worked in the way he did.  In addition to paper and pens, he took
>  with him everywhere as an indispensable article of equipment the
>  coffee machine, which was no less important to him than his table or
>  his white robe. Stefan Zweigs, Biography of Balzac
> Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
> Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 

-- 
 PGP EA5198D1-Zephaniah E, Hull <warp@whitestar.soark.net>-GPG E65A7801
    Keys available at http://whitestar.soark.net/~warp/public_keys.
           CCs of replies from mailing lists are encouraged.

Attachment: pgpmhyePyyjNy.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: