Re: could you safely rewrite the DFSG requirement?
Sven <email@example.com> writes:
> Again, if it is going to be ignored anyway, why not remove it.
Because it's a waste of time to try and make the DFSG legalistically
pristinely perfect. We know what it means, our users know what it
means, and once in a while, someone is confused.
> BTW, if i would make such a proposal, would you second me, and also maybe
> reread it for english correctness ?
Probably not. I think it's a waste of time for Debian to be navel
gazing about such irrelevancies.
Proposing changes which seek to change *nothing* about what we
actually do is a waste of time, in my opinion.
> So you prefer to ignore what is written and convince others that it should be
> interpreted as you wish.
No, I use what *is* written, and interpret it as we always have. It's
you that wants to add all kinds of qualifications to the actual
> 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.
We never promise to *anyone*. There is *NO* rule that if you follow
the guidelines it will be part of Debain. If someone wants to know
what's necessary, we can easily help
> But it is publicly written nowhere, apart on the archive of this
> list, anyway.
> And this is against our _no hiding stuff_ commitment.
Wrong. "no hiding stuff" means that we let everybody join in and
listen in. Indeed, this is so far from a secret, that I want to be
damn sure that O'Reilly understands it before we put their text into
> Also it would be nice to add some bit about the status of documentation as
That is already in progress; please don't mix it up with the