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

Re: New DFSG Draft revision #3



Replies to multiple messages here. 

>> Contents
>> --------
>[...fills a screen...]
>
>Is this really necessary?  =p  This is part of what I mean about format. 

No, of course not.  I'm using debiandoc to code this and following the examples
they provide.  If Debian would prefer not to have the contents, it can be
easily removed... like by deleting one line in the sgml file.

>I can understand why seperating things you must allow and things you
>might require is probably a good thing, but I don't like it much
>personally.  I think we should perhaps not use it if we intend to keep
>the social contract and DFSG together in the same file, but it might be
>more sane if they were in seperate files and just referred to eachother. 

I think seperating things is a good idea.. that's why I havn't let this die. 
I'd also like to see the DFSG seperate from the social contract.  There have
been a number of times, in the beginning, that I've gone to look for the DFSG
to compare it against a license and couldn't find it... It didn't make sense,
to me, to look for the DFSG in the Social Contract.

>> 1. Introduction 
>> ----------------
>[..]
>
>Again, I don't think this is needed if we're including this with the
>social contract as that should define the scope and set forth the goals
>and lead into the DFSG.  If the DFSG will stand on its own however this
>isn't needed.

What is needed is something.. a paragraph or more.. that explains, at a
minimum, that a license that wants to be considered DFSG-free must grand the
permissions and can only restrict those permissions in ways listed.  I'm open
to suggestions on what that wording should be.  OTOH, if this document *is* to
stand alone, a little bit about what and why DFSG wouldn't hurt.

>Is "you're going straight to hell if you don't send me a postcard" a
>non-binding request?  Just curious where the moral imperative becomes
>binding (even the FSF makes non-binding requests for donations :-)...

Since going to hell wouldn't prevent you from using/distributing/modifing the
software, I'd call that non-binding :)

>Noteworthy that you define software as software, not software and
>documentation.  This is intentional I hope?  =>

This is intentional.

[re: terms section]
>I'm not sure if these things aren't obvious.  This is one of those
>differences between having something clear to begin with and having to
>define everything for you.

Some of this isn't obvious.  I've had a few people ask just what we meant by
"depecated".  That was the prime reason for adding this section.  Deprecated
can imply many things but this (what ever ends up here) is what the DFSG means
when it uses it.  Software I decided to throw in there because some tried to
apply DFSG to documentation, papers, documents, etc and it wasn't always a
clear association (just what *is* the source of a document?  Because I don't
use sgml, it's not DFSG-free?  Or I wrote it in in a text format and you
browsed it and saved it as html... or...???).  The 'S' in DFSG stands for
software.  We can always write a DFDG if we need/want to.  As for licencee... I
was getting desprate to fill the section :)

[I welcome replies to my list email cc'd to me]

-- 
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html                                     <><  *
* -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------*
*    Darren Benham     * Version: 3.1                                   *
*  <gecko@benham.net>  * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++*
*       KC7YAQ         * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS--   *
*   Debian Developer   * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++   *
*  <gecko@debian.org>  * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+                            *
* -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------*
=========================================================================

Attachment: pgpRRHnKwz4Lh.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: