Re: Referencing the DFSG [Re: DRAFT summary of the OPL; feedback requested]
Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> If my opinion matters, I have to come down more on Don's side of this
> I think Jeremy's concerns about not reinforcing the meme of "DFSG as
> strict ruleset" are quite valid, but I think it serves people well if
> we cite the DFSG wherever applicable in our license analyses.
> One reason is because it will help us to become better aware of
> limitations of the DFSG as currently written, and where we might be
> able to improve it.
My fear is that, as Don seems to be showing, people will oversimplify
and miss the limitations. Getting people to think in terms of
"modification" instead of "DFSG 3" seems useful.
But so far I seem to be on the losing side of this debate, at least in
terms of numbers, so I don't intend to push too hard. Besides, Batist's
point about professionalism and appearing thorough is well taken, though
it offends the idealist in me. I guess I need to work on my cynicism. ;)
So unless there are others who feel as I do, I'll go ahead and include
the DFSG section in the summary when I post it tomorrow.
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03