[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)

Manoj wrote:

> 	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.

Seconded (or fifthed or whatever :)

Zephaniah wrote:

> Why do we need a DFSC? I've heard lots of talk about it not being overly
> vague and not very explicit, but I have not heard much in the way of
> specific cases where this has come into play..
> And I have heard no reasons why we should not add the small notes here
> and there to the DFSG if/when such cases do come up, if at some point
> the changes become excessive, then yes, we should take a good hard,
> long, look at splitting them off into a DFSC or the like, but at the
> moment? Why?

IMO, Ian has done an impressive piece of work that will be a very useful
vehicle for Debian discussions over the next years as a background document
helping us identify the borderline cases that may require interpretation of
the DFSG.

Personally I prefer and use the GPL but I have met people who avoid using
it merely because of its length.  This would be a silly problem for Debian
to have with potential redistributors.

So keeping the current DFSG is, as I have said before, a very important
thing for the continuity of Debian's identity.


Kristoffer Høgsbro Rose, Ph.D., prof.associé  <Kristoffer.Rose@ENS-Lyon.FR>
Laboratoire de l'Informatique du Parallélisme  équipe PLUME, bureau LR5-026
Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon; 46, Allée d'Italie; F-69364 Lyon 07 cedex
phone: +33(0)4 7272 8642; fax:...8080    <http://www.ens-lyon.fr/~krisrose>

Reply to: