On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 05:53:15PM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:
> Remember, if you don't want a new DFSG at all, you can always vote it
> down and argue against it when the proposal is made. In the mean
> time, lets see if we can atleast make this the best wording we can.
>
> Also, remember, I think the proposal needs to be worded so that the
> DFSG ballot has an option with AND without the deprecated clauses so
> now is not the time to try to get them removed...
>
> Please let me know what you think, then.
FYI, also, the significant changes in this version:
* Do we want the DFSG to cover documentation as well? ie, man pages
and stuff? Presumably we don't want it to cover things like RFCs
and the FHS though. (check the Application section)
* The Introduction has been shortened a lot.
* Is the Limitation of Liability really a restriction on use or
distribution? This is just a layout thing, but it'd be nice to
get it right.
* Section 3.5, Restriction on Charges has been added to cover the
Artistic License's `You may charge for distribution, but not the
program itself.' I'm personally still uncertain about this clause,
and what effect it would have on CD vendors and stuff.
What do people think of the wording now? Does it still suck, or is it getting
there, or...?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Attachment:
pgp33qsX5OECK.pgp
Description: PGP signature