Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
>>>>> "MJ" == MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
MJ> There is no other way for something to be part of the debian
MJ> distribution. Regardless, the point that DFSG are not a closed
MJ> list stands.
It's not clear to me how true the claim that the DFSG are not a closed
set of requirements is. That's certainly the assertion of
debian-legal. ANd as a reader and infrequent contributer to that
list, I think there have been some fairly arbitrary decisions made by
that community.
I don't think we'll actually know how closed a set of requirements the
DFSG is until we are faced with a major challenge of the current
process--a case in which a significant minority believes the current
process has broken. We've had such minorities--the LaTex project, the
APSL folks, and one other. But they never pursued any sort of
challenge to the consensus of debian-legal in a procedurally valid
manner.
As such all we have right now is a claim by a lot of people that the
DFSG is open. In practice that currently means the DFSG is in fact
open. I suspect it will remain so until and unless some particularly
arbitrary decision causes us to question the process.
--Sam
Reply to: