Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes
I guess you want CC's. If you won't add an MFT header, at least say you
want them; Debian list policy is to not CC people on replies unless
requested, and some of us do follow this policy. :)
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:29:37AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> The problem with relying on human judgement is that it can be
> arbitrary. If Microsoft came to Debian and said "Would you accept
> this software licensed under the Microsoft Public License?" would you
> be able to make a judgement which is not only not arbitrary, but which
> could be *seen* to be non-arbitrary? If you want to make judgements
> on things which aren't in the DFSG, how can you not be seen as
D-legal decisions are based on rationale: consensus interpretation of
the DFSG. Decisions based on logical grounds are not arbitrary.
The rationale is freely available in the list archives. People might
easily disagree with it, but it's certainly not arbitrary.
There has been discussion in the past to set up a minor document that
does what you describe: details specific interpretations of the DFSG.
There were several arguments against it. (I won't rehash them; does
anyone happen to remember one of these threads to find an archive link?)
I do think that, for specific interpretations of existing DFSG clauses,
having them in a secondary document is better than amending the
(currently short and to-the-point) DFSG.