Re: Bug#51842: [PROPOSED] closing hole in DFSG that can force you to include some text in advertisement
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Joey> We don't want to fragemnt the OSD and the DFSG. Such a
> Joey> fragmentation would be bad for both documents.
> Quite so. But just because something is a bad idea does not
> mean one is not empowered to do so. If some one were to try and
> change the DFSG, I would oppose it, until shown very good reason to
> change the DFSG (and I can't imagine what those could be), but I
> still defend the right of the project to actually change what we
> define as free if we all so choose.
I'd go further and say that we have no reason or obligation to take
the OSD into consideration at all. They copied from us, if they don't
like the changes we make, tough. And no, I do not accept JoeyH's
thesis that it would hurt the DFSG (it might hurt the OSD, but ask me
if I care). That said, I agree 100% with everything Manoj said: we
should be *very* *VERY* reluctant to change the DFSG, but we should
leave the option open.
Chris Waters email@example.com | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or firstname.lastname@example.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.