On 25 Apr 2014 15:15, "Solal" <solal.rastier@me.com> wrote:
>
> Why not just take the Free Software Definition[0] instead lose a lot of
> time in specific guidelines.
> I think use the Free System Distribution Guidelines published by the
> FSF[1] is the best way. Use the FSDG instead of the DFSG will :
> -Be more efficient instead of lose a lot of time in the DFSG.
> -Be sure to be in the 100% free GNU/Linux distros list of the FSF.
>
One is not a superset of the other. The two documents are incompatible. As one example each way - In debian, we consider GFDL license with invariant texts to be non-free. Whilst FSDG, disqualifies providing compatible archives of non-free software.
How are you measuring efficiency / loosing time here? Given the non-trivial cost of switch and more restrictive terms of FSDG would require more audit and ongoing work.
The FSF 100% free list is not a deal-breaker pretty much for everyone.
What specific aspects of FSDG do you find to not be met by DFSG?
I am not sure if DFSG predates FSDG or not, but DFSG was used as a basis for free software definition as published by Opens Source Initiative (OSI) thus many organisations, including the Linux Foundation, do recognise Debian as a free operating system.
To answer the topic of your email - yes by large DFSG has been extremely useful (especially in the early days of pleora of self-written licenses) to current times with established license terms and non-trivial compatibilities between them. It is concise and easy to read and understand. Widely accepted by everyone else. Switching to a different metric will not magically resolved all licensin issues (patents, trademark violations, copyright assignments etc.) nor make upstream tarballs to be magically correct and acceptable.
Regards,
Dimitri.