Steve McIntyre wrote: > Josh Triplett writes: >>Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >>>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... >> >>No, I think the main objection is that many people don't want to >>consider the hand-waving arguments at all, and think everything that >>can't be precisely related to some specific DFSG point should be >>considered Free. > > I think you're mis-stating my point. The default state should not > necessarily be that any license is Free unless proven otherwise. I've > never said that. I did not mean to imply that you in particular did. Some people do feel that way, however, and I feel that is a major problem. >>I dislike the idea that every new clause would require modifying the >>DFSG, and that clauses which have not yet been prohibited would be allowed. > > Again, you're exaggerating this. Some license clauses are clearly, > unambiguously not free. Others are not. If we've seen several > variations along the same theme where there is a clear consensus that > such a thing is non-free, _that's_ when I'm saying we should mention > it. Maybe as an example of a common bad license clause, whatever. What about the ones that don't directly relate to a DFSG point, but are not "clearly, unambiguously not free" to everyone? >>With that in mind, what if we just amended the DFSG to include a >>statement at the top explicitly acknowledging the "Guidelines" >>interpretation, and pointing out that the DFSG is not an exhaustive list >>of allowable license clauses? That way, it is clearer that the DFSG >>cannot be used as a checklist, and that general-consensus >>interpretations about a license are valid. > > pass, or a simple majority of the small number of self-selecting > interested posters to debian-legal, many of whom are not DDs? That's > the point I've been trying to make for a long time here. I would tend to say a supermajority consensus on debian-legal, with the ability for the project as a whole to override such a decision with a GR, based on sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.2 of the Debian Constitution. I suspect that such an ability would rarely be used, considering that it would be easier to simply get the developers who would vote for such a GR to help you argue your case on debian-legal. Note also that debian-policy is basically self-selecting (albeit with a more formal process), and it seems to work fine. As for some debian-legal members not being developers :), that is an issue to consider as well. On the one hand, many contributors to debian-legal are not DDs. On the other hand, we don't really want single-shot opinion mails from people uninterested in rational discussion. I would tend to say that if it became necessary to adopt a formal process, then it would have to be limited to DDs, while if the process remained semi-informal like it is now, then all contributors would probably be included in the informal "do we have consensus" check. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature