Re: Proposal to modify DFSG
On Thu, 13 May 2004 01:06:41 -0400, Paul M Foster <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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
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
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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