Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:03:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <email@example.com> writes:
> > Why not? Again, what practical difference does it make to our users?
> Right now, not much -- but it makes it harder for us to mistake
> non-free licenses for free ones. The patent situation sucks, but to
> take it as precedent would lead to there being no free software.
So we declare it non-free despite the fact that it makes no difference
to our users? Does this not sound a little ridiculous?
> > Yes. Why does the test say this? Which aspect of the DFSG is represented
> > by this test?
> The DFSG give some guidelines for how to identify Free Software. They
> are not an exhaustive definition.
The Debian social contract states:
"We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free"
in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software Guidelines". We
promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free
according to these guidelines."
If you can't relate these tests to the guidelines, they are effectively
guidelines themselves. If they're guidelines, then they should be in the
DFSG. There's a defined process for changing the DFSG - you propose a GR
and you convince the developers to vote for it. Effectively extending
the DFSG without developer agreement is not acceptable behaviour.
Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org