Re: [Discussioni] OSD && DFSG convergence
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:49:54PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> 2) Besides that, there are at least four definitions of "free
> software": the OSD, the DFSG, the DFSG as interpreted by debian-legal,
> and RMS's definition.
This seems to be the root of the issue: the DFSG is _not_ a definition.
It is a set of guidelines. Guidelines are only meaningful when they
are applied (which is not the same as interpreting them), and as far
as I know Debian is the only entity currently applying these guidelines.
So there is no "the DFSG" separate from "the DFSG as interpreted by
debian-legal", and neither of those is a "definition" anyway.
You keep trying to treat the DFSG as a definition, probably out of
habit from working with the OSD. That's simply not going to work.
If you want a meeting of minds here, then you'll have to address
this fundamental difference.
I'll try to give it a start:
Do you think that Debian _should_ move from using guidelines to
using a definition?
If so, what's the benefit? Do you understand the risks we see, and
do you have an answer for those?
If not, then what kind of convergence do you have in mind? Same
text, different application? Some kind of hybrid between the two
approaches?
What does the OSI currently do with licenses that meet the OSD
but are egregiously non-free? (As a practical example, I don't
see anything in the OSD that would rule out a license that expires
at a certain date.)
Richard Braakman
Reply to: