Re: [Discussioni] OSD && DFSG convergence
John Goerzen writes:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:22:33AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > I'm on the mailing list, there's no need to CC me.
> > John Goerzen writes:
> > > And yet every proposal you put forth is "Debian must become more like OSI
> > > and the DFSG must become more like OSD."
> > ... and the OSD must become more like the DFSG, and proposed open
> > source licenses should be run past debian-legal. I'm not proposing
> > unilateral action on anybody's part. I'm prepared to compromise (or
> > rather, to recommend compromise to my board of directors). Are you?
> I am NOT prepared to compromise Debian's high Free Software standards. I am
> NOT prepared to accept RPSL-licensed software into Debian. In this case,
> "compromise" seems to me merely a word for "cave-in".
Of course. You cave-in on some things, we cave-in on others. Or
don't you understand what compromise means? Compromise means that you
give up on some things in order to get something else you want more.
Again, I must say that if the consensus of the debian-legal list is
that there is no need to change the DFSG, then we have no basis for
discussion. There cannot be convergence unless the DFSG changes!
> I have no prima facie opposition to clarifying points of the DFSG based on
> important case history from debian-legal; however, I would rather see this
> as a "DFSG companion" rather than an amendment to the DFSG itself.
Why? What purpose would it serve, when that document would have equal
authority to the DFSG? Why not amend the DFSG (modulo the fact that
it's hard work)?
> > > I for one am glad that RPSL-licensed software is not in Debian, and
> > Why? The sole objections that I can see from debian-legal archives
> > refer to text which has been changed in the final OSI-approved license.
> My objections referred to the text as posted on your website under the
> approved section as of... about two days ago.
Huh? But your objection was bogus. DFSG-free is DFSG-free even if a
given set of people have more freedom. I could say, in the Russ
Nelson license, "Everybody can distribute this software. If you
change the software, you must change the name, unless you're Russ
Nelson, in which case you don't have to change the name." Would you
object to such a license? (Hint: it is approximately the Apache
Besides which, you are but one person. You do not get to say what the
consensus is on the RPSL. Given that I, one member of debian-legal,
say one thing, and you, one member of debian-legal, say another thing,
it seems that 1) we don't have a consensus, and 2) in any case, two of
many is never consensus even if we agreed with each other.
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less,
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.