Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:39:42PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >In the end, we still come back to the fact that we're dealing with a
> >set of guidelines that needs to be thoughtfully applied to a
> >license. For many of these cases, there's no known bright line test,
> >where X is free, and Y is non free. [See the OSD v DFSG threads for
> >more examples...]
>
> The DFSG clearly needs to be tightened up and clarified, then. Or is
> the point of debate on -legal simply to justify the existence of
> -legal?
If you're going to argue that the DFSG should be changed from a set of
guidelines (which, by definition, require interpretation and human
judgement to apply) into a definition, which can be implemented by
robots, please say so. You seem to think it's a bug that the DFSG
doesn't have bright-line tests for every possible non-free requirement;
such tests don't exist.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: