[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OSD && DFSG convergence

John Goerzen writes:
 > The DFSG does not simply say "No discrimination"; it says "no discrimination
 > against persons or groups."  While you may enjoy your over-legalistic
 > interpretation, a reasonable person understands that this clause does not
 > mean to reject every possible license.

Exactly my point.  So why are you using it that way?

 > > should use that term of the DFSG in the manner it was intended, not in
 > > the manner you would like to twist it into.
 > Interesting that you make yourself an authority on the intent of the DFSG. 

Nahhh.  I'm just reading Bruce's commentary to you.  He edited
Debian's members words into the DFSG.  Do you think he was wrong about
the intent of the no-discrimination clause?

I like the no-discrimination clause.  It's worked very well.  You just
don't see any software anymore that says "Free for educational and
personal use; government and commercial users must license it."  But
don't go over-reading it like you've been doing.

 > > What you're doing is amending the DFSG without telling the rest of the 
 > What I'm doing is futilely trying to explain why the RPSL is not in Debian
 > to somebody that has no interest in listening.

But ... the RPSL is not not in Debian.  There's no consensus.  If
somebody submits an RPSL-licensed packet, you'll say one thing and
I'll say another.  How can you say that debian-legal operates on a
consensus basis in the face of our disagreement?

Now, if you want to say that debian-legal operates on a veto basis --
where ANY debian-legal member can veto ANY license -- why, THAT I
would agree with.  Can you see why I think that's a bad thing?

 > I have proposed amendments before.  You would have known it if you had seen
 > it.

I understand that people have banged their head on that brick wall
before.  I suppose that at some point even I will run out of patience
and go back to SPI and say "Sorry, guys, I did my best.  One bright
thing did come out of it -- and that's to run licenses past
debian-legal as well as license-discuss -- because obviously there are 
opinionated people who don't bother to subscribe to license-discuss."

-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.

Reply to: