Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Sam Hartman writes:
> > >>>>> "Russell" == Russell Nelson <email@example.com> writes:
> > Russell> Why not change the DFSG?
> > Currently we have some organizational issues that make it rather
> > difficult for us to change the DFSG even if we want to.
> That's an explanation of why it's hard to change the DFSG (thank you
> for writing it), not a reason not to change the DFSG.
It's an explanation of why it's harder than it may seem, and therefore
would require a benefit beyond "the process can be made clearer" or "it
would be nice for OSI and Debian to match".
At this point, I think the best way to approach this might be for OSI to
improve its definition, and then when/if it becomes easier or more
desirable for Debian to change the DFSG there will be a good template to
steal from :)
IMO, convergence isn't a goal in itself, though it's nice to have. It
seems to me that it would naturally occur as a side-effect of all parties
1) agreeing on the undefinable basis of measurement (i.e. "open source" vs
"free software", "strict definition" vs "consensus flameocracy"); and 2)
wanting to be clear about their beliefs.
I have no opinion about #1 - I don't know all that much about OSI. I
think OSI and Debian can and should strive for #2 seperately (and help
each other with suggestions, when asked).
If #2 (which takes years, and never ends) doesn't result in moving closer
to each other, it may be due to #1.
Mark Rafn firstname.lastname@example.org <http://www.dagon.net/>