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

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 02:11:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > If a package with 20kB of invariant text isn't clearly okay by your
> > guidelines, and a package with 40kB of invariant text clearly
> > not-okay, what's the point of having the 32kB figure at all?
> "A well-chosen arbitrary limit will:
> 1) Be sufficiently low as to not violate the intent of DFSG 3;
> 2) Be sufficiently high as to let most "unobjectionable" packages that
>    have to be evaluated under this criterion into main;
> 3) Be sufficiently low as to encourage authors/licensors to not get
>    carried away with large amounts of invariant text."

I'm not really sure why you felt the need to quote that, although I know
you have a narcissitic crush on your phrasing.

Some fairly simple questions which, no doubt, you'll find some excuse to
not bother answering:

Does a package with 20kB of invariant text (and no other concerns)
clearly pass the DFSG under your interpretive guidelines?

Does a package with 40kB of invariant text (and no other concerns)
clearly fail the DFSG under your interpretive guidelines?

Now, certainly, exceptions can be made in either case, since all these
things are just guidelines, but it's the rule I'm interested in here,
not the exceptions.

To go back a couple of messages in the thread:

] > However, if you have to GNU manuals, licensed under the FDL, with 20kB
] > of invariant sections each, you can't combine them into a single package,
] > even if that might be more convenient for you and for your users.
] Who says you can't?  Are you forgetting the "guideline" part again?

Based on this, your answers to the above questions are "yes, usually"
and "the guidelines aren't really helpful in this case and independent
judgement is required and encouraged". In which case, why bother with
the 32kB limit at all?

> Is it your assertion that the ftpmasters decisions should not be subject
> to review, 

I have no idea why your knee likes to jerk from "good judgement is
expected from <foo>" to "<foo> must never be question", but it's no
longer particularly surprising. Sometime in the next few years you might
like to consider if there's a more effective way to build consensus than
your modus operandi.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 "Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
   C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
    can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
		-- Mike Hoye,
		      see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt

Attachment: pgpOEODnE9Q7P.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: