On Sat, Feb 20, 1999 at 12:05:27PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote: <snip> > I still think it would be a much better idea to fix these holes with > incremental amendments to the DFSG, so that the effect of each can be > carefully considered. It took us more than a year to discover all the > ramifications of the DFSG. Agreed... <snip> > If the number of questions about licenses are a problem, then > we could just start a license FAQ. For example, the "without fee" > question pops up regularly. That's something that no amount > of DFSG drafting will clear up. Also agreed.. > > > 3. You should probably give up the G in DFSG, as these no longer seem > > > guidelines, but a more precise, legalistic attempt to define exactly > > > what free software is and isn't. > > Again, it's *not* an attempt to be legalistic. The opposite, it's an > > attempt to be clear. Clearer than the current DFSG. > > I like the G, in fact. Sure, it's a bit silly to use phrases like > "... does not comply with our guidelines". But calling them > Guidelines at least allows us to make sane judgements about weird > license clauses that aren't covered by them. And again... I guess what this amounts to is that I agree with Dark here... > Richard Braakman Zephaniah E. Hull.. -- PGP EA5198D1-Zephaniah E. Hull <email@example.com>-GPG E65A7801 Keys available at http://whitestar.soark.net/~warp/public_keys. CCs of replies from mailing lists are encouraged.
Description: PGP signature