[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: the meaning of 'the same terms" in DFSG 3, and why the QPL fails it (was: An old question of EGE's)



On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:36:47PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 13:08:39 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:41:24AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > > However, if you really want to know how DFSG 3 was intended then you
> > > must talk to the people who wrote it.
> > 
> > To be honest, I'm less interested in that than in what it is we think it
> > means today.
> 
> You don't seem to be very consistent on this point. 
> 
> You yourself used Bruce's clarification that he intended the DFSG to
> be applied to everything on the Debian CDs to back up your own
> interpretation[1] and suggested seeking his counsel regarding the
> meaning of the (now defunct) "We won't object to commercial software
> that is intended to run on Debian systems" clause[2].
> 
> What brought about this change of heart?

You're positing a false dilemma, similar to the one conservative "strict
constructionists" in the U.S. have been using against the Earl Warren court
for a generation or two.

The intentions and reasoning that went into the deliberations that forged
the original DFSG and Social Contract provide extremely important context
for understanding the motivations of those documents, as well as the nature
of the problems and threats to freedom that were -- and were not --
anticipated by the Debian Project at the time.

That is very valuable information to have, which is why I continue to be
disappointed that we haven't collectively thrown open this aspect of our
history to the wider community (it's all archived in debian-private).

However, providing context is not the same thing as mandating a certain
conclusion.

It is *our* responsibility, not our ancestors', to uphold the rights of
users and developers.  History should provide context for our decisions,
but *we* must make the relevant judgements in the present.

Historical context can be persuasive, but it is not dispositive.

> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/08/msg00017.html
> [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2000/06/msg00299.html

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    Half of being smart is knowing what
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    you're dumb at.
branden@debian.org                 |    -- David Gerrold
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: