Re: could you safely rewrite the DFSG requirement?
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 01:29:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
>
> > Why be obscure when the point mentioned by Stefano is the one applying here ?
>
> It's one point; I'm not sure it's the only point.
>
> > Here, i am not aggreeing with you, aggregating with an empty content
> > one liner is not an aggregation, like adding 0 to something don't
> > change the value of it.
>
> Ah, but an "empty content one liner" is not empty of content. If it's
> one line, then it's one line of content, and it adds .000000001 units
> of content, And that's an aggregation.
Does an empty one liner really adds something to the information contained in
the said documentation ?
Also notice that changing the spaces and such of a source code is not
considered a modification, altough it adds/removes things, and the resulting
patch is by no means empty (unless you specify the right options to diff,
that is.
> > If we keep this agreggation requirement, then it must be something
> > meaningfull that get aggregated, if not, then we need to word the
> > DFSG differently.
>
> Then post an amendment to the DFSG to the appropriate group! This is
> not it.
I have no time for it right now, but maybe i will do. The problem with this is
that you need to be sure that all, ort at least a big enough majority of
debian developper agree with your current interpretation.
The other thing is a political one, do we really want to go this way, printed
books are nice and all, but with the future advent of electronic books and
sucgh, getting access to the electornic form would be a big gain already.
Finally, i guess that this matter will be lost in a huge flamewar on
debian-vote.
Also, i am not sure i would be the right person to write such a thing, it
would be full of orthography errors.
> > Then why rely on obscure interpretations, instead of bringing this matter the
> > clarity it could have, and clearly state that documentation must be printed
> > as is for us to consider it as free. This is what you want anyway, then why
> > not say so.
>
> Well, we are saying so as clearly as we can: aggregations must be
> permitted, even aggregations which add in only tiny amounts.
You are saying, but not the DFSG, this is the central point here. and altough
you have, by the fact that you represent debian-legal, a strong power on these
decision, you by no mean represent a majority of debian developpers.
> > mmm, then wh ynot spell out the DFSG clearly, or at least write a
> > DSFG interpretation document or something such which explains our
> > interpretation of it, so that other folk can clearly understand what
> > we mean by the DFSG.
>
> I don't think this is really that hard; it's the plain meaning, and
> it's how it has always been understood and applied. I'm sorry you
> don't know this, but I'm explaining it to you now, so you now know
> it. I'm happy to explain it to as many people as necessary.
Again, see my other mail on this, the fact that we have a huge thread on this
alone shows that this is not plain meaning.
> If you think adding it to the DFSG would be a help, the propose such
> an amendment (in the proper place) instead of here!
>
> If you think a DSFS interpretation document would be useful, then
> write one!
Responded to above ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: