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. Cheers. -- 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