Re: [Discussioni] OSD && DFSG convergence
- To: Russell Nelson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: [Discussioni] OSD && DFSG convergence
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- Date: 02 Mar 2003 11:38:52 -0800
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <3E293D15004047CD@ims4a.libero.it> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Russell Nelson <email@example.com> writes:
> The DFSG has a problem. It fails to admit that there is unlicensed
> software which belongs in Debian. Rather than amend it, you're
> interpreting its ambiguity to mean what you want. That's fine, but
> what do you do when someone comes along and interprets its ambiguity
> to mean what *they* want?
No problem. If they are a Debian developer, we explain better how we
decide things. debian-legal is an excellent tool for this.
> And then they insist that their software MUST go into Debian. If
> you refuse, they will sue you for reliance (they created this
> software for this express purpose of putting it into Debian, relying
> on the DFSG to mean what it says, not what you say it says. You
> will harm their business if you refuse to go by the plain meaning of
> the DFSG).
Debian has never promised to anyone, ever, that we will put their
software in Debian if it meets the DFSG. We can, and do, exercise
many other tests to exclude software, not just the DFSG.