On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:31:49PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > I think the drive to connect the informal tests back to the DFSG > has been a good one and it's certainly made me think again on a > couple of things. I hope that the link was there originally and > has just been lost because of the sort of habit and familiarity > that made you name the wrong test above. While I can't recall the circumstances in which the idea was constructed, as far as I am aware it has *always* been used merely as a shorthand for DFSG issues, to save having to go through the elaborate explanation every time. Whenever somebody on -legal demonstrates clear confusion, we run through a more detailed discussion to cover the background. It probably won't be clearly visible in the historical discussions, because until recently we didn't have the saboteurs popping up in every thread and trying to derail discussions with absurd claims about the DFSG not explicitly excluding the subject. This has been a monumental waste of time, particularly since it's hard to tell the difference between them and somebody who is merely confused. The notion that it has ever been disconnected from the DFSG, or a new rule, or anything like that, is one created and trumpeted by the anti-freedom advocates. It's fiction. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature