Re: Referencing the DFSG [Re: DRAFT summary of the OPL; feedback requested]
Chris Waters <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> 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.
> Hmm, I think I missed the start of this thread, so maybe I'm missine
> something, but from what I see, the key question seems to be: is this
> intended a teaching tool or a reference? If the former, then "getting
> people to think" is an issue. If the latter, then perhaps we can
> assume that people can already think.
It's both, really. The goal is to improve communication, both with
upstream and with packagers. This is going to be many people's window
onto how d-l functions, and as such it's important that we give a bit of
thought to what it tells them about the process.
> If it's trying to be both, then I suspect it will be, of necessity,
> less than perfect in either role.
That's a valid point, but inescapable, I think.
Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03