Re: a right to privacy is not in the DFSG, therfore you don't have one
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: a right to privacy is not in the DFSG, therfore you don't have one
- From: Steve McIntyre <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:50:42 +0000
- Message-id: <E1CviVO-00015C-9N@sledge.mossbank.org.uk>
- In-reply-to: <20050131194728.GP20882@zewt.org>
- References: <200501201839.j0KId3Gn007541@smtpserver2.Princeton.EDU> <20050120222429.GA4215@yellowpig.yi.org> <20050120223741.GA25603@alltel.net> <20050120225248.GD23559@archimedes.ucr.edu> <email@example.com> <20050121010903.GF23559@archimedes.ucr.edu> <20050121202813.GM10649@spawn.internal.mnemosyne-consulting.com> <20050121205245.GI23559@archimedes.ucr.edu> <20050122050425.GR10649@spawn.internal.mnemosyne-consulting.com> <20050131190830.GG13656@redwald.deadbeast.net> <20050131190830.GG13656@redwald.deadbeast.net>
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 02:08:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> Thanks for the props, however. I continue to believe that a DFSG analysis
>> is the *beginning* of a process of understanding whether something is free
>> software or not, not a substitute for the whole thing. Certain well-known
>> people in the project have stridently insisted to me, however, that this
>> opinion puts me into an extremely small minority.
>I don't believe you're in the minority at all--if you are, it's probably
>time to scrap the DFSG entirely, since the Project must no longer care
>about Free Software principles at all.
*yawn* That's a nice line in rhetoric you have there. The DFSG is the
standard that DDs have agreed should be the basis for deciding on the
Freeness of Software. If you want to extend it, you know what to
do. Hint: it starts with actually becoming a DD rather than sniping
from the sidelines.
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
"...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user'
as meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver." -- Daniel Pead