Re: could you safely rewrite the DFSG requirement?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 07:51:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Tell me if I understand correctly: I (we) have to remove the DFSG
> > requirement fully not to violate the DFSG point "License Must Not
> > Contaminate Other Software", right?
>
> Perhaps that's one way to put it. I would also put it by saying that
Why be obscure when the point mentioned by Stefano is the one applying here ?
> the DFSG must allow free distribution when aggregated with other
> things, period, whatever character that other thing has, and
> regardless of how big that other thing is.
Here, i am not aggreeing with you, aggregating with an empty content one liner
is not an aggregation, like adding 0 to something don't change the value of
it.
If we keep this agreggation requirement, then it must be something meaningfull
that get aggregated, if not, then we need to word the DFSG differently.
> > Please, tell me why we (as debian) have to care about "aggregation".
> > Why we can't leave it as it is and leave O'Reilly care about this if
> > anyone will redistribute a version of the book attaching to it only a
> > page or a line or a character?
>
> We care about freeness.
Then why rely on obscure interpretations, instead of bringing this matter the
clarity it could have, and clearly state that documentation must be printed
as is for us to consider it as free. This is what you want anyway, then why
not say so.
> We want to make *sure* that O'Reilly understands the license they are
> in for, and not just implicitly.
mmm, then wh ynot spell out the DFSG clearly, or at least write a DSFG
interpretation document or something such which explains our interpretation of
it, so that other folk can clearly understand what we mean by the DFSG.
This has the advantage of not requiring a full vote, but may bring to light
requirement anbd interpretations that may be controversial.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: