Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report
On 2004-07-12 18:52:11 +0100 Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
* MJ Ray:
Can you explain why?
Maybe it didn't seem important when the DFSG were written? [...]
I doubt arbitrary termination clauses are a new problem, even since
then.
Sorry for the complications. There is an attempt to change the DFSG
through various "Tests".
Wow, that's paranoid! If one assumes that other -legal contributers
are sincere and honest, I think one would say that the tests are
attempts to apply the DFSG, but today's use of them isn't obviously
doing that.
Some of them make sense, some of them are
just arbitrarily designed to exclude specific licenses (or even
specific software!).
Can you support that accusation?
The proper way to update the DFSG is a vote on
an amendment to the Social Contract/the DFSG, and I think it's time to
again follow the Debian Consitution in this area.
Please, not another flaming vote. Not unless we really really have to.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"Matthew Garrett is quite the good sort of fellow, despite what
my liver is sure to say about him in [...] 40 years" -- branden
Reply to: