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

Re: Validity of DFSG #10

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 06:07:33PM +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
> > 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.

Proposed addendum to P&P phase, question: can a non Debian project
member start a GR?  SCNR :)

> 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.

As it usually happens, getting rid of something is much easier than
building something new (possibly its replacement). So, even if I agree
that the two aspects are somewhat orthogonal, I personally don't see
much of a point in getting rid of DFSG §10 without we have a decent, and
better, replacement for it. This is just to say that *I* won't
personally lead the effort of getting rid of DFSG §10 until we have a
decent (and maintained) list of DFSG-free licenses. Others could do
that, if they want to; and anyone could help in phases that don't
require Debian membership like discussion, text drafting, etc.

Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: