Re: DFSG: Do we really need a rewrite? or Just clarifications? (was Re: DFSG2: The patch exception)
>>"Zephaniah" == Zephaniah E, Hull <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Zephaniah> On Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 12:02:52AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> 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.
Zephaniah> *wince*, leaving us with two, possabley conflicting in areas,
Zephaniah> documents, adding confusion..
The DFSG is the goal, in this model. The new DFSC are merely
rules that help us achieve the DFSG, and are only in place because
the DFSG may not be as explicit as it could be. The DFSC is our
interpretation and clarification of the DFSG.
There can thus never be a conflict, because a conflict means
that the new DFSC is in error.
As it stands, I like the sentiment of the DFSG, and I would
like us to stand by that document.
To be able to be caught up into the world of thought--that is being
educated. Edith Hamilton
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E