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

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:17:45PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 3) The way the DFSG is currently interpreted by debian-legal is not 
> obvious to an outsider, and some interpretations are felt to be 
> excessively extreme. Some companies feel that various licenses were 
> genuine efforts to be DFSG free, but the discussion that followed their 
> release was sufficiently confrontational to reduce any desire to fix any 
> bugs.

Most of the time, for random buggy licenses, we either get an
immediate clarification/update to the license, or we get no response,
or we get a (stock) response and no response to explanations of why it
was wrong.

"Confrontational" tends to be an excuse to avoid discussing the
issue. X-Oz is the last company I remember playing this game. It
generally takes the form of "We're giving you the software, so you
must accept our judgement of the license, and we are not interested in
reasons why we might be wrong".

I can't imagine how we could do things differently.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: