[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes

Are you reading the list?  I'll CC you on this message (deviating, for
the moment, from list policy of not CCing without request, and hiding
from Branden); if you don't want CCs, let me know.  (If you do, you
should add a Mail-Followup-To header.)

On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 04:58:01PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Fair enough, but do you really expect people to study the archives?
> For example, Google knows nothing about "debian-legal RPSL", implying
> that you never discussed the RPSL.

The correct way of finding out if a license is DFSG-free is to ask
debian-legal.  People frequently do this, even for very simple, BSD-ish
licenses (and cases that don't require discussion--the majority--generally
get a reply very quickly).

> A search of the Subject: headers
> between last July and now shows no instance of RPSL, or Real.


"RealNetworks" is in the subject, and the search on lists.debian.org
doesn't find partial matches by default.

I don't know why Google doesn't have that indexed.

> Why not change the DFSG?

There have been several good reasons explained for leaving the DFSG as a
set of human guidelines, rather than a word-strict block of legalese that
attempts to remove all human judgement from the equation.

I can't find them at the moment, though, and I'll leave the explanation
to someone who can do so better than I can.

Even if this was done, DFSG freeness isn't a guarantee that a package
will be included in Debian.  For example, a game with half a gigabyte
of data, all of which is DFSG-free, would most likely not be included in
Debian; and software which has no interested Debian developer is unlikely
to get into the archive.  DFSG-freeness is necessary, but not always

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: