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

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?

Reply to: