On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:58:05AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> I'm not trying to be obstreperous, or cause trouble. I'm trying to
> point out that you're applying the DFSG in an arbitrary manner.
Yes; that's why the DFSG is the Debian Free Software _Guidelines_. It's
written to require intelligent interpretation, and doesn't cover all
cases. That's by design -- we tried a couple of times to formalise it
more a while ago, but basically decided not to, largely on the presumption
that we don't know everything and are thus probably better off waiting
'til we know what issues come up, before trying to address them. The
DFSG is the basis for all this, but it's not completely definitive,
by any means.
> We can't do that at OSI, so we need the OSD to cover these cases.
That's your choice. IIRC, you'll find a bunch of people expressing
concern about OSI converting our "guidelines" into a "definition" if
you look through various list archives around that time.
HTH.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Australian Linux Lovefest Heads West''
-- linux.conf.au, Perth W.A., 22nd-25th January 2003
Attachment:
pgpipv7SId4OG.pgp
Description: PGP signature