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

Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3

On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:13:46PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > 3) Do you feel the Free Software Foundation deserves selective exemption
> > from the DFSG?
> No. Some of the software they produce may deserve it, though,
> independently of its being produced by the FSF.

Which is to say some software needn't be free software to be in Debian,
in spite of point one of the social contract?

That looks like wordplay, but I don't *think* it actually is. I think
we've basically established that *most* docs have to meet the DFSG as it
stands (otherwise we end up with lots of pointless crap in manpages),
and I personally think it's reasonable to assume that something is
DFSG-free independent of how popular it is, of what it does, or of who
wrote it and how high they are in the free software community.

And apart from these sorts of reasons, I can't see any good reason why
we should acquiesce to RMS's demands for the FSF's docs, but not to
J. Random Kid and his desire to push his views on the world too.

I'd like to be able to, but I just can't.


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: pgpwNUcMS9svk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: