Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 16:33:35 +0100 Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>
>> [...] In fact, the DFSG do not
>> deal with _any_ conflicts that may arise, or with license termination.
>
> Are you sure? Really sure?
Yes, I checked it again. 8-)
> Can you explain why?
Maybe it didn't seem important when the DFSG were written?
> "DFSG require that software be freely redistributable, which certainly isn't the case if the license has been terminated arbitrarily." --
> Bruce Perens, "Is Your Software In Danger of Termination?" at
> http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html
Such clauses are problematic for end users and developers, but not all
problematic clauses make software non-free.
> It's also a practical difficulty, as we hope to be able to archive
> debian releases in their released state:
> http://archive.debian.org/debian-archive/
*shrug* I fail to see a difficulty; if we make a mistake and
distribute software illegally (or just against the explicit wishes of
its authors), we have to edit history anyway.
> I feel sad that few people recently have directly referenced
> objections back to the DFSG. It makes these things more difficult for
> me to learn. I've been guilty of it too. I realise my mistake.
Sorry for the complications. There is an attempt to change the DFSG
through various "Tests". Some of them make sense, some of them are
just arbitrarily designed to exclude specific licenses (or even
specific software!). The proper way to update the DFSG is a vote on
an amendment to the Social Contract/the DFSG, and I think it's time to
again follow the Debian Consitution in this area.
Reply to: