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

Re: GUADEC report

On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:34:28AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> 1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;

This simply isn't how some people in the Project think.

The alternative approach is to assume that anything is DFSG-free until proven
otherwise.  Historical evidence shows that many of them don't even seem to
read or endeavor to comprehend the license in the first place.  One can
then accuse anyone who later questions the DFSG-freeness of the work as
"reinterpreting the DFSG", when no interpretation was actually applied to
the package in the first place.

In short, the goal is get as much stuff into main as quickly as possible.
The priority is to score points in some sort of game[1], not to serve our
users or Free Software[2].

[1] Whether the game is "how many packages am I listed as maintaining" or
"how many packages Debian has relative to other Linux distributions" varies
by the individual.

[2] http://www.debian.org/social_contract
    (Surprisingly, it would seem, one can find the language "Our Priorities
    are Our Users and Free Software" even in the original version of the
    Social Contract.)

G. Branden Robinson                |       Psychology is really biology.
Debian GNU/Linux                   |       Biology is really chemistry.
branden@debian.org                 |       Chemistry is really physics.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |       Physics is really math.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: