Re: Is this license DFSG free?
* Sean Kellogg ::
> On Saturday 11 June 2005 01:51 pm, Joe Smith wrote:
> > >flexability, but can you point to the particular clause that
> > >you feel hints at this sort of a requirement/prohibition?
> > Nope, I can only give you a link but as I understand it the
> > tests are commonly used.
> > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
> Well now, this strikes me as a problem.... from a political
> science perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a
> self-appointed group of various legal, political, an philosophical
> stripes, is making substantive policy decisions based on thin air?
Nope. Debian-legal only debates the issues and sometimes, if we are
lucky, reaches some kind of consensus about them. Who makes the
substantive policy decisions about the licenses: the ftpmasters.
Then, if any debianer is against those decisions, he/she has access
to constitutional remedies.
> The three thought experiment tests, while nice and good, fail
> traditional structural tests because they are not rationally
> based. Absent a rational basis there is no way to disagree with
Why aren't they rationally based? I mean, really, they seem pretty
rationally based to me. All of the tests (as are the DFSG) are
designed to protect the freedom of "speech" the software freedom is
> them, and absent ammasing a super-majority to change the DFSG to
> repudiate the tests, they seem to be locked in stone. U.S.
> Courts, love of 'em or hate 'em, base everything they do two
> sources: 1) previous decisions, 2) decisions made by elected
> officials or their appointees. Debian-legal seems to have adopted
> #1, but failing #2 it chooses instead to insert its own opinion.
> Which brings us back to the self-selected nature of the group.
#2 are the ftpmasters, the debian-legal is a "consulting body" whose
consensus is generally (but not always) followed by ftpmasters.
> I don't want to be the wacko who just goes off on a long standing
> system that, all things considered, seem to be working pretty
> well... but I also know that our the new DPL has made it pretty
> clear that he wants Debian institutions to be looked at to make
> sure they are actually doing the Project's work. Perhaps this is
> the time to seriously consider how debian-legal functions and on
> what sort of basis it makes decisions.
The problem is that you are basing your conclusions in wrong