On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:50PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Well, in my eyes, you were already doing the former (since I > thought that it was obvious that the SC applied to everything on the > CD). I realize now that what was obvious to me was not so for > everyone else. For comparison, here's some quotes from a post to -devel in 1998: I think not. I think the DFSG has been designed for software; and there is a reason for wanting free software -- when we start talking about books and novels and graphic novels and standards and opinions, I think the old criterion (and certainly the reasons for the old criterion) do not fit anymore. I seem to see people having a knee jerk reaction about this -- we strongly advocate the DFSG for software, so it must be good for everything else -- but I think if you examine *why* we advocate free software, and what that says about community building, that the same conditions do not apply here. I think we are not yet ready to name them. I have pointed out a few cases where the DFSG may be too limited because it was designed to cover software issues. If we are trying to define acceptable document licences, I think we may have to rethink the issues involved. http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/1998/debian-policy-199808/msg00109.html Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Protect Open Source in Australia from over-reaching changes to IP law http://www.petitiononline.com/auftaip/ & http://www.linux.org.au/fta/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature