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

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

Scripsit Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com>

> Perhaps we should consider amending section 4 of the DFSG so
> that instead of only allowing one restriction on modification (changes
> must be distributed in source form as patches to the unmodified
> sources) to allowing any restrictions on a Debian Free Software
> Warts List.  This "warts" list would include the patch, and would
> also include some other carefully chosen statements about what
> we allow.

I agree that explicitly listing which restrictions we _do_ allow in
free software would be much saner than trying to list restrictions
that we do not allow.

> We might also want to stipulate that software without warts
> can't depend on software with warts (I don't think we currently
> do this, but if we're increasing our risk of running into
> problems, we should try to contain those risks).

I think that would be too difficult to manage. Either we consider the
wart free and allow everything else to depend on it, or we consider it
non-fee and classify software appropriately.

(Observant readers may remember that I tried to start some discussion
about rewriting the DFSG along these lines some years ago, at

Henning Makholm                          "I tried whacking myself repeatedly
                                     with the cluebat. Unfortunately, it was
                                 not as effective as whacking someone else."

Reply to: