Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 04:06:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I'm not comfortable with calling this license the "Debian Free Content
> > License" -- or the "Debian" anything, for that matter -- if the license
> > can be exercised in such a way that the work isn't DFSG-free.
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Nick Phillips wrote:
> Do The Right Thing. If doing so exposes flaws in the DFSG, they need to
> be changed, rather than hobbling the work-in-progress to fit with guidelines
> which may or may not have adequately considered the present situation.
I read Branden's message as not wanting to put Debian's name on a license
unless it is adequately and unambiguously free, and therefore always meets
the DFSG, not that he wants to work around some flaw in the DFSG.
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.
--
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: