Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
David Nusinow writes:
>
>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.
But it seems that codifying the more common non-free clauses would
remove some of the ambiguities in the DFSG, and then people on -legal
would have less to hand-wave about. That seems to be a core
objection...
>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).
Good plan.
>5) Possibly start -legal-announce for summaries and such
>
>Hopefully those are good starting points for you. My goal isn't to tear down or
>break consensus, but to bring some sort of peace and compromise. If you don't
>like this and would rather rant and talk in circles, then I'm not the man to be
>posting to this list. If you like any of these ideas, let me know and I can try
>to help implement them.
Good luck; you'll need it.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"I can't ever sleep on planes ... call it irrational if you like, but I'm
afraid I'll miss my stop" -- Vivek Dasmohapatra
Reply to: