Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Nick Phillips wrote:
>> The DFSG defines the spirit of the license we're looking for. A license
>> needs to be found/created that fits it, rather than modifying the DFSG to
>> fit some license.
> Exactly. The spirit. I'm not advocating that anyone should lightly consider
> modifying the DFSG.
Are you advocating that we might need to non-lightly consider it?
> I'm just pointing out that it would be a shame to end
> up creating a useless license for the sake of complying with guidelines
> which may or may not have been written with that license's application in
> mind, should it turn out that creating a useful one is not possible whilst
> complying with those guidelines.
I don't understand. This shame is not possible. If something is clearly
and unambiguously free, it will meet DFSG. If it's not, then the license
has a problem, and we shouldn't call it a Debian license.
My semi-operational definition of "free" for a documentation/media license
is "if source to an application were released under the license in
question, it would clearly be allowed into Debian".
> Anyway, I trust Branden to Do The Right Thing
Completely.
> so I don't think we're going to serve any useful purpose by going to far
> with this.
There are both edge cases and fundamental disagreements that Branden very
likely already has on his list, but seeing discussion may help him
determine how to prioritize them, and certainly helps me to understand all
the considerations that go into the next proposal.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: