Re: Draft new DFSG

[john@dhh.gt.org]

I wrote:
> The only change I would propose to the DFSG is the addition of a
> clause explicitly stating that Debian can pass a resolution declaring
> any particular license "in" or "out", regardless of its actual
> wording.  This would effectively plug all loopholes and give Ian a
> chance to talk us into throwing out particular licenses that he finds
> repugnant even if they are technically in compliance.

Zephaniah E, Hull writes:
> I would strongly disagree to this, if a massive loophole is found then we
> can patch the DFSG, but allowing us to up and decide that we don't like a
> license which fits the DFSG is (IMHO) not acceptable..

We already can do this.  It just isn't explicit.

> If its a true violation of the intent and instead just a massive work
> around the wording then we can change to wording, which seals the hole
> for the future..

And my proposal would make it clear that we can pass a resolution sealing
the hole in the past.

> If its NOT truly a violation of the DFSG and we just don't like the
> people who do it (IE The MS open software license which complys but we
> just don't like) then we need to take a BIG step back and take a look at
> ourselves,....

If the only thing stopping us from refusing to accept packages because we
don't like the author is the absence of some words from the DFSG, we have
bigger problems than this.

> I'd like to think its actually about free software and not picking at
> specific people...

And I'd like to think that we are mature enough not to do so.  If we
aren't, a few words in the DFSG won't change much.  My proposal essentially
makes the developers a "supreme court" for the DFSG, so that ambiguities
and dispute can always be resolved.
-- 
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI