Re: Draft new DFSG
Joseph Carter wrote:
> The issue is that one can write a license which is very much not free
> and stull happens on a technicality to fit the DFSG.
If that is possible, then it's a flaw in the DFSG, and we should
certainly be willing to discuss changing the DFSG when such a case
arises. I'm not entirely convinced that such a case has arisen.
(Though I'm willing to be convinced.)
I agree with those who say that having a well-defined set of criteria
for what we allow and what we don't gives us a sort of moral high
ground. If we go to arbitrary voting on a package-by-package case, we
open ourselves up to accusations of bias and prejudice. We need to
provide clearly defined reasons for rejecting something.
I'm open to the discussions of improvements to the DFSG (though such
things should be approached carefully, so we don't lose developers).
But I feel that a group as large and unwieldy as Debian really needs to
have firm guidelines, not arbitrary ones.
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or cwaters@systems.DHL.COM | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Reply to: