Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Don Armstrong writes:
>On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Don Armstrong writes:
>> >None of it, apparently, which is one of the reasons why the DFSG is
>> >a set of guidelines, not a mere definition.
>>
>> That's a convenient argument for ignoring whichever bits of the DFSG
>> you don't like, it must be said.
>
>Not for ignoring, but for limiting the reach of them, or for
>recommending to ftpmaster to disallow licenses that are not free, but
>may not contravene the DFSG directly. [I don't think we've ever had a
>case of the latter, but I believe[1] it's in ftpmaster's power to do
>so.]
>
>> If you're going to selectively apply DFSG#5 as you see fit, then
>> consensus grounded in the DFSG is never going to happen.
>
>We may never have unanimity on a specific point of the DFSG without a
>definition capable of being applied by a machine, yet even without an
>exact definition we can obtain consensus.
If you think we should be trying to interpret things like "must not
discriminate", I'm not sure we have much at all that could be grounds
for consensus, to be honest.
>> The DFSG clearly needs to be tightened up and clarified, then.
>
>Surely. But that's an extreemly complex job in it's own right, and one
>that I'm not ready to take on right now.
I'm really beginning to lose patience here - just about everybody here
seems quite prepared to debate licenses forever, but doesn't want to
actually _do_ anything about them...
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"This dress doesn't reverse." -- Alden Spiess
Reply to: