[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:31:44PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Branden Robinson:
> > Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
> > to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
> We are obligated to our users not to remove (maybe even reject)
> software without reason.

A good thing, then, that no one has actually *proposed* removing or
rejecting software without reason.

> I doubt that the test du jour can serve as an adequate foundation for
> removal, especially if the failure of the test can not be tracked back to
> a DFSG violation.

Well, this is nicely hyperbolic and vague.  How long must we wait to
introduce a new test before it is derided as "the test du jour"?  We've
only really come up with three in six years.  (A couple of others have been
proposed, but have not made it into anything resembling an official
document, and in any event haven't been used in license analyses AFAIK.)

Is it your contention that the DFSG is comprehensive, and covers every
possible freedom-violating scenario that a license might plausibly attempt?

G. Branden Robinson                |
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      Ignorantia judicis est calamitas
branden@debian.org                 |      innocentis.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: