Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:21:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > But it seems even more efficient to just oppose your proposal. Why
> > shouldn't I just do that?
>
> Be my guest. If it's just too much bother for you to participate in a
> constructive, collaborative process, then I guess attempting a veto is
> the only course of action left to you.
I'm happy to cooperate in a constructive process. But it requires
you, the one interested in drafting proposals, to try and include the
concerns and not try and slough them off.
> You're right insofar that I am not willing to graft a blank check for
> the FSF onto my proposal. Try as I might, I cannot conceive of your
> intentions as anything but:
Well, no, that's just not what I'm asking for.
> > I want a proposal that *at once* outlines both the guidelines, and
> > whatever system there is for allowing exceptions. A proposal that
> > does only the first part of that is worse than no guidelines at all.
>
> The existing DFSG fits exactly that description, and seems to have
> functioned fairly well over the years. My proposal can be regarded as a
> footnote to the DFSG, and the fact that it has been written years after
> the original document, once a concrete problem with its interpretation
> came to light, is -- I think -- a testament to its success, not
> indicative of its failure. Your mileage may vary.
I'm happy to say not only that it has functioned fairly well over the
years, but it functions just fine Right Now, without any need for
special footnotes.
Perhaps you were unaware of the fact that there have been invariant
sections for years--indeed, since before Linux existed, let alone
Debian. But the rest of the world was not necessarily as ignorant,
and this is not some brand new "concrete problem"; it's a perfectly
old, well-tried, case.
If one wants to know how to interpret the DFSG in a particular case,
the best test, in general, is precedent. And you aren't going to find
much stronger precedent than the Emacs manual, in my opinion.
> I ask you to contribute to Debian's progress, and not to impede it.
I think you, dear sir, should consider whether this whole
conversation--one you are the driving force behind--has done anything
to contribute to Debian's progress.
There simply HAS BEEN NO PROBLEM before. The GFDL is new, but the
principles involved are NOT; they are WELL-TRAVELED GROUND, and it is
*you* who are the prime force behind trying to shake things up as much
as possible.
Reply to: