On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:49:00AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: > Mark Rafn writes: > > I _DO_ object to changing it's use to be a binding definition > > rather than a set of guidelines. > This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially, > everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude > software from Debian. But that is a right you don't have. Errrr, of course it is. The OSD is a definition, but Debian is a *product*; although we're held to an *ethical* standard in the form of the Social Contract and the DFSG, no one can hold us *legally* accountable for our decisions to not include a given piece of software in our product, no matter how arbitrary that decision might be.[1] OTOH, if we were to adopt a public policy that "everything that meets the DFSG is allowed in main", we might as a consequence be exposing ourselves to liability that doesn't otherwise exist -- even in the case where a piece of Free Software is such utter crap that its very presence in the archive is a disservice to our users. > Well... what is wrong with amending the DFSG so it incorporates the > case law? Because it's hard? Shit, coding is *hard* and we do it > anyway. Coding is hard, but provides tangible benefits. Political change is hard, and provides fewer tangible benefits. > It seems to me rather that the membership would *want* to change the > DFSG, if only so as to keep the subset of Debian which is debian-legal > in check. Then I will again assert that debian-legal is the wrong forum for proposing a change to the documents that debian-legal is here to interpret. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer [1] Unless someone tried to get us on criminal negligence for failing to provide certain security-related software, perhaps; that's a case I'd almost like to lose, just to see the repercussions for OS distributors who truly *are* negligent. ;)
Attachment:
pgpXTWIpt4jUo.pgp
Description: PGP signature