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

Re: DFSG v2 Draft #5

On Jan 25, David Welton wrote:
> Would it be prudent at this juncture to start discussing why we will
> vote against this?  Or do people whish to finalize the format before
> we discuss why we think it should be voted down?

I think you (or we) can discuss the merits of the proposal now (that
seems to be the reason why we're critiquing drafts).  I personally
support it because the current DFSG, while mercifully brief, doesn't
have the "checklist" approach that this proposal seems to have (and a
DFSG-compliance checklist seems to be what most developers would need
in evaluating a new license).

IMHO we should also be discussing how the vote on this proposal will
be structured.  My understanding is that there are multiple DFSG
revision proposals "out there", even though this one is the only one
being currently hashed out on the list.

My voting structure proposal is (using preference voting):

[ ] Retain current DFSG
[ ] Revised DFSG proposal by A and B
[ ] Revised DFSG proposal by C
[ ] None of the above alternatives is acceptable

(I have no idea what quasilegal effect "None of the above" would have,
since it cannot be taken as an endorsement of the existing
DFSG... perhaps it would mean that the Social Contract as interpreted
by individual developers would govern what packages are acceptable,
subject to a majority vote to overrule that decision.)

|         Chris Lawrence         |               My home page:              |
|    <quango@watervalley.net>    |    http://www.clark.net/pub/lawrencc/    |
|                                |                                          |
|      Amiga A4000/060 with      |       Visit the Amiga Web Directory      |
|       Linux/m68k 2.1.127       |      http://www.cucug.org/amiga.html     |

Reply to: