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

Re: Validity of DFSG #10

Hi Stefano, all,

First of all thanks to all who contributed to the thread and sorry I
went silent after 2 messages to thread. The main reason for going silent
was I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment further on thread :-)

But I was reading all the messages thread and in short I can summarise
two outcomes from this thread.

1. Dropping of DFSG #10
2. Having a license page which can replace [1] which can declare or say
which licenses Debian community thinks as Free (DFSG Free). 

And I assume point 2 is also separately discussed on another thread also

[1] http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/

On 15:37 Sun 06 Jan     , Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 08:35:00PM +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
> > Just to give a background as part of my NM process me and my AM
> > (intrigeri) started a discussion on ambiguity in DFSG #10 which
> > specifies example of DFSG free license as BSD, GPL and Artistic.
> Heya, thanks for pointing this out here and all the best for your NM
> process! :-)

Thank you :-)

> > 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.
> Sure enough, DFSG §10 is doomed to be outdated and it's already quite
> misleading in the BSD case. It could even get worse if, say, future
> *versions* of licenses that are listed there and that we currently
> consider free, won't be considered free anymore.


> So, sure, we could drop it. (Note that this isn't entirely trivial, as
> it will require a GR with a 3:1 majority, given that the DFSG is one of
> our foundation documents.)

So we would need to start a GR for this process but I'm not sure being
not a Debian Developer I can start a GR. Can you suggest me how I can
help in this. Of course I know it is more important to have the valid
list of license which we considers DFSG free first but again we are not
sure how long it will take us to document this.

Warm Regards
Vasudev Kamath
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

Reply to: