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

Re: Proposal to modify DFSG

On Thu, 13 May 2004 01:06:41 -0400, Paul M Foster <paulf@quillandmouse.com> said: 

> I couldn't agree with this more.  On the binary kernel drivers
> issue, well maybe....

> But specifically on the issues of documentation and licenses, it's
> patently obvious that this isn't "software" and shouldn't be treated

	Patently obvious to whom? To me, computer related entities
 can be divided into three categories: Hardware, Software, and
 wetware: and  documentation and licenses fall into software, by
 elimination, if nothing else.

> as such. You can't go around randomly modifying RFCs and the
> GPL.

	But I can create derivative documents from RFC's, as long as
 I do not claim it is the RFC itself. I have, thus, usefully modified
 the RFC, and renamed it in the process.  I should be able to create
 Manoj's clarified version of RFC 2822, and call it obfulgum, if I

> That's the whole point of them.

	While I do not say modification is the whole point, I do aver
 that it is a useful freedom.

> And yet, because you can't, they don't satisfy part of the DFSG, and
> thus must be removed? If this is what the DFSG actually means, then
> I believe it's past time to alter it. And if the Debian developers
> would rather amputate their arms than alter the DFSG as needed, then
> perhaps it's time to share governance of the Debian Project with
> _users_.

	That'll be the day.

IBM Advanced Systems Group -- a bunch of mindless jerks, who'll be
first against the wall when the revolution comes... with regrets to
D. Adams
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: