Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
Branden Robinson <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:02:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > 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.
> That's the way Debian works. The work gets done by those willing to do
> it. If you want to see some work done to proceduralize the
> grandfathering of DFSG-unfree packages in main, roll up your sleeves.
But I DID give a proposal, which you poo-pooed, because of your
fetishization of bright-line guidelines.
> I do not regard accident as precedent.
Bruce Parens has already given his take on it. Why do you think it's
accident? Because you were apparently ignorant of the facts does not
imply that everyone was.
> You'd have a stronger argument if the GNU Manuals reverted to (or still
> had) the licenses they bore when the DFSG was adopted. In fact, I find
> the traditional GNU documentation license, which I quoted in the impact
> section of my Final Draft, quite satisfactory, and I don't think there's
> anyone who could convincingly argue that that license cannot be applied
> in a DFSG-incompatible way without chaging its text or adding riders
> (which is true of all DFSG-free licenses).
Except, the Emacs manual has *ALWAYS* had the form it does now, or
nearly so. Are you happy with it, or not?