Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes
Ean, could you explain to Thomas why you think we should have one
definition of Free Software?
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > More than anything else, I'm wanting to see if it's at all possible to
> > work with you. What I'd really like to do is let debian-legal judge
> > licenses, and have OSI rubber-stamp your decision. In order to do
> > that, though, you'd need to modify the OSD so that it reflects your
> > current understanding of the DFSG and stands on its own.
> OSD is perfectly free to rubber stamp our decisions. But you are the
> ones in the business of official certification, we are not. We have a
> hard enough job doing our job, without trying to take on yours.
> We interpret the DFSG for our purposes, as we always have, and we are
> fairly content with what we have and with our processes.
> You want us to modify our processes--why? To make *your* job easier?
> To encourage us to start doing your job? Why is this something we
> should do?
> >From Day One it has been the insistence of Debian that the DFSG are
> *Guidelines*, and NOT a "definition". Your crowd decided they would
> work as a "definition", and you are discovering that they don't, which
> you were of course told at the time. Now you want *us* to change
> *our* guidelines, so that they do work as a definition. WHY on
> *earth* should we care about that project?