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


    As has been pointed out before, such a proposal doesn't belong here. The
    function of -legal is to interpret the DFSG and vet the free-ness of
    software[1] licenses in accordance with said interpretation. It is *not*
    its role to decide which parts of Debian the DFSG should adhere to (or
    not). Such a proposal should be brought up on -project if and when
    anyone gets around to actually writing it.

Thank you for this correction.  I am not that familiar with the details
of Debian's procedures.

    Said proposal would have a near-zero chance of passing

It is not useful to speculate about what others will think.  They will
speak for themselves.

    [2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I personally
    believe that, Invariant sections or no, the term "Open Source" will
    *still* be more widespread, or at least be seen as synonymous with "Free
    Software" (as the increasingly popular FOSS [Free/Open Source Software]
    concatenation shows) presumably some even more drastic concessions will
    have to be made in the name of increasing mindshare?

If you want to criticize the FSF based on things you can imagine we
might do, I am sure you can imagine no end of nasty possibilities.
The only answer necessary to them is that they are false.

This isn't the first time I've seen such a thing, and this is a part
of why I have decided not to discuss the matter further.

Reply to: