Re: could you safely rewrite the DFSG requirement?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 07:48:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
>
> > I think if we were trully concerned with the user's right, we would fix the
> > DFSG with regard to this ASAP, and not juggle with interpretations like you
> > are doing here.
>
> "juggle with interpretations" suggest that you think we've just made
> something new up. What we are saying is how it's been interpreted
> from day one.
Maybe, but it is not what is written. Also i guess if you ask all debian
developpers about this, not 100% of them will agree with you on what they read
there.
Also, i suppose you were already a debian developper when the DFSG was first
written, to say that it was interpreted such from day one, if yes, why was it
not written clearly ?
Finally, the "juggle with interpretations" is the result of an observation of
what happened here, instead of saying since the begining of this thread :
"altough the DFSG seems to say otherwise, we won't accept this licence,
because we don't consider it as free".
This would have been understandable, but this is not what did happen, there
were various different reasons for rejection given, and a polemic about what
is considered an aggregation, the absurd proposal of aggregating an no content
one liner and other such things.
The correct way to solve this is to change the DFSG to say what we want it to
say, and not to resort to obscure interpretations to have it mean what we want
it to mean.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: