Re: DRAFT summary of the OPL; feedback requested
Humberto Massa <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> 4) Each reason should refer explicitly to the freedom that is
>> restricted, and how it is restricted. Including the DFSG section
>> number is not necessary.
> I know you gave some time to discuss it, and I did not oppose, but,
> looking at the edited summary below this, I prefer the inclusion of
> the DFSG section number.
Why? This is a serious question: how does "(DFSG 3)" tacked on to the
end of a sentence help to explain the issue?
As I see it, it serves no purpose, and could only reinforce the notion
that the DFSG is a recipe (or definition, or whatever you want to call
It has no explanatory value, as knowing which section of the DFSG is in
question doesn't do much to actually explain the problem. Conversely,
if the problem is explained adequately it should be obvious to anyone
with the DFSG in front of them what the issue is. The DFSG isn't such a
long document that you need to give page numbers.
But thinking that the DFSG delineates a bunch of categories into which
non-free licenses can fall is a depressingly common, and absolutely
*wrong*, viewpoint. Reinforcing that notion is a bad idea.
Don't get me wrong; I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. But absent a
good reason for including references to sections of the DFSG, I don't
think it's a good idea. Note that I didn't say you couldn't in my list
of guidelines, just that it's not necessary to a good description of the
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03