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

Re: DFSG claims BSD, not BSD 2/3-clause, is DFSG-free

Perhaps you'd be interested in 20130105150458.GA6414@vasudev.homelinux.net


On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Richard Hartmann
<richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
> during my ongoing NM process, I have been asked to review several
> Debian documents and propose any changes I would like to see.
> While, to put it bluntly, I think the Debian Constitution is written
> somewhat sloppily, it's most likely not worth going through a GR to
> get what amounts to janitorial work through.
> Something that _can_ easily be changed (afaik) is that the DFSG[1] states that
>   'The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
> we consider free.'
> It's quite obvious that this refers to 2- and 3- clause BSD, not
> 4-clause BSD. Still, that's not what it says. Same as above, this is
> mainly janitorial, but still valid.
> As I honestly don't know where to take this, I decided to open this
> can of worms here.
> Thanks,
> Richard
> PS: If anyone's seriously interested in the barrel or container of
> worms of "clean up the Debian Constitution a bit and see those changes
> implemented", maybe we should do that in another thread.
> PPS: Same as whitespace commits, this type or janitorial work can be
> rather political or even religious. I do not intend to offend your
> FSM. Promise.
> [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] CAD77+gSOP_MwF7GCrUs+t83nehXSZk0q0wT02f0cL3Q_sNmNCA@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] CAD77+gSOP_MwF7GCrUs+t83nehXSZk0q0wT02f0cL3Q_sNmNCA@mail.gmail.com

All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors.

#define sizeof(x) rand()

Reply to: