Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue

[Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:35:31PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> You sound like you don't actually want to discuss these things, despite
> previously claiming that you do. Make up your mind. I'm not saying consult the
> rest of the project on every little decision, but applying dogmatic
> interpretations of the DFSG is a big decision, and this *needs* to be
> communicated to the rest of the project. The various tests, controversial
> interpretations like choice of venue, etc. These are not definitively
> demostrable within the DFSG.

I don't mind discussing them.  I'll admit to not caring to discuss six
things (several of which seem to me to be self-evidently non-free, such
as arbitrary termination) simultaneously.

> 2) Steve McIntyre has continually suggested codifying the various things in the
> DFSG. I fully agree with this. If you really truly believe that your
> interpretations are shared by the rest of the project, then you have nothing to
> fear from this, and you only stand to gain.

There's certainly something to lose from this being done incorrectly. An
amendment saying "The license may not require a choice of venue" would
inevitably set a precedent: for every other weird restriction that we see,
the person trying to push it into Debian would say: "Hey!  You had to have
a GR and change the DFSG to call choice of venue non-free!  I demand a GR
for my 'say the Pledge of Allegiance' restriction, too!"  I'm not really
against it in principle; it's just the side-effects that worry me.  (I
keep seeing assurances that it won't come to that, but I really havn't
been very reassured.)

> 3) As I stated earlier, I liked the news post to DWN. Keep those up for big
> things like new tests and interesting new interpretations.
> 
> 4) Announce major changes to things to -devel-announce. If a major license is
> declared as non-free, announce it to -devel or -devel-announce (maybe the
> -devel first in order to allow dissenters to weigh in before going for the
> broader -devel-announce).
> 
> 5) Possibly start -legal-announce for summaries and such

I don't have a problem with any of this, but this is all after-the-fact
stuff: things to do after a big discussion, forming a list consensus, and
writing summaries.  It sounds like what you want it things to happen to
draw people into the discussion before we find ourself at a consensus
(that's certainly better than doing so after, since that results in the
discussion rebooting).

-- 
Glenn Maynard