On 10:48 Sat 05 Jan , Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
> On 5 January 2013 10:35, Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In brief Jakub Wilk wanted to get rid of DFSG #10 as it is creating
> > ambiguous situation by pointing to licenses which have multiple
> > variants. rather than rephrasing him I'm attaching his mail with his
> > permission to this.
> >
> > In my opinion DFSG #10 is not a guideline but a statement giving example
> > compared to other DFSG's so even I feel it is better to drop DFSG
> > #10. So I would like to formally start a discussion on this topic
> > here. Please share your suggestions.
> >
>
> I see #10 as a guideline, is a piece of advice, «follow this as
> example of what we consider free».
OK.
>
> The web points to the last GPL, not the v3. Of course, there are
> differences, but the DFSG means all the GPL are DFSG-compatible. And
> that BSD is as Debian see the BSD. Maybe this should be specified.
> Althought I've seen that what we call the BSD the rest of the people
> call it too BSD.
May be if DFSG #10 is piece of advice saying which licenses are DFSG
free I feel it is better we give link to this page [1] than simply
specifying few license name in guidelines. Thus we will also avoid
ambiguity of current DFSG #10 and we will give users a list of license
which we consider as DFSG free.
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
--
Vasudev Kamath
http://copyninja.info
Connect on ~friendica: copyninja@{frndk.de | vasudev.homelinux.net}
IRC nick: copyninja | vasudev {irc.oftc.net | irc.freenode.net}
GPG Key: C517 C25D E408 759D 98A4 C96B 6C8F 74AE 8770 0B7E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature