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

Re: Unicode Character Database

On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:15:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:10:38PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:34:36PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:
> > 
> > > > This license is not actually DFSG-free; it grants the right to make
> > > > copies, to use copies for creating products, and to distribute copies
> > > > *internally*, but it does not grant the right to distribute copies
> > > > publically or to modify the file.
> > 
> > > The perceived consensus in 2002 was that the license is DFSG-free, but
> > > this is not my point.  (However, sometimes I think it's easier to
> > > intepret the license itself than the result of the discussion about it
> > > on this list.)

> > Hmm, I've reviewed the archives and it looks like you're right here.

> I see nothing approaching consensus.

> Moving on to December:

> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200212/msg00004.html

Ah.  It would be nice to have a mail archive that doesn't chop threads
into calendar-month blocks.

> I see no consensus one way or the other, but I did not see a single
> person defend the license as DFSG-free as written.


So maybe it would be nice to have an archive that can follow threads
across mailing lists, as well.

I note that the posts which made the clearest statement supporting this
license as potentially DFSG-free ("if you hold it up to the light the
right way" ;) went unanswered by anyone who felt the file was non-free.
(I guess the dissenters were otherwise occupied with beating down those
who wished to make standards exempt from the DFSG.)  I don't know what
other definition of consensus is possible, given the wide range of
opinions and the amount of *refining* of those opinions that are typical
of a thread such as this.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpA5LQmfhIL4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: