Re: could you safely rewrite the DFSG requirement?
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 09:27:05AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Well, this may well fgollow the letter of what is written, but in no way the
> > spirit of it.
> The "spirit" of it? The "spirit" of it? Puhleez.
> The DFSG's spirit is given by the customary interpretations on
> debian-legal and the history of how it has been used. Not by you
> insisting, first, that we must be very literal, and then, when it
> turns out the very literal meaning isn't what you want, insisting that
> instead we shouldn't be so literal.
> The actual "spirit" of the requirement is to pretty much ignore the
> aggregation qualification entirely. You didn't like that, so I showed
> how taking the qualification literally amounts to very close to the
> same thing.
Again, if it is going to be ignored anyway, why not remove it.
The rest is just play with words and other nonsense that is used for
BTW, if i would make such a proposal, would you second me, and also maybe
reread it for english correctness ?
> > That said, do you have an idea of what would be the implications of the
> > removal of this aggregation stuff, what packages may cause a problem if it is
> > removed ?
> Nope. I don't have any interest in fighting that battle, but if you
> do, then you should probably start doing the research.
So you prefer to ignore what is written and convince others that it should be
interpreted as you wish.
> The requirement is not a requirement *on us*. We don't have some kind
> of promise to incorporate anything into Debian that meets someone
> else's understanding of the DFSG. It's not dishonest to say "we
> insist that you allow X before it can be part of Debian".
But it is dishonest to say that you have to follow the guidelines so that it
can be part of debian, and later, rather than use the said guideline, play
with some non intuitive interpretation of said guidelines.
> Me? This is all about me? Maybe if there were a crowd of other
> people saying "yeah, Sven is right". But there just ain't. This is
> the *historic* and *accepted* and *generally applied* interpretation
> of the clause. I'm sorry if you don't like that fact, but it is a
But it is publicly written nowhere, apart on the archive of this list, anyway.
And this is against our _no hiding stuff_ commitment.
> So I must continually put all my opinions to a vote because one
> nattering twit insists I'm wrong?
Mmm, did i ever insult you in anyway on this long thread ?
I don't think so, and even if i did, it is most probably due to me not finding
the right words, or somethign such, and thus i apologize to you for it.
Now, this mean that the most elemental politeness is that you don't insult me
> > 3) there are packages (maybe even important ones) which will have to be
> > removed from the archive if we remove the aggregation clause.
> I don't know of any. Do you?
No, and saddly, i have not the time to look at it, if only the day had more
Ok, let's stop this thread, i have things to do right now, not the least of it
being working on my packages to clean them up before the freeze and subsequent
Also i think we have both bored this list enough as it is.
But, i will make a proposal for the DFSG to be ammended so as to remove the
aggregation clause, or at least clearly state that we consider a null or
almost null aggregation ok.
Also it would be nice to add some bit about the status of documentation as
I still feel that i am not the right guy for this, as i am no native english
speaker, so i hope someone will reread what i propose and make the appropriate
modification in order for it to catch the right nuances and such.
I will probably to this after the freeze and woody release though.