On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 21:43:55 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Mon, 09 Oct 2006, Francesco Poli wrote: > > OK, but reaffirming the literal meaning of DFSG#2 now does not help > > a future discussion where the DFSG will hopefully be changed to > > unambiguously affect all works (both programmatic and > > non-programmatic). > > It doesn't help or hinder it; IMHO it kinda goes against that goal. I don't know how much I would be comfortable in reaffirming what I wish were changed... > discussions about what changes to the > DFSG should be made or the nature of future discussions about those > changes are just totally out of its scope. That is more or less what I meant: since how DFSG#2 applies (or should apply, or should be changed in order to apply) to non-programmatic works seems to be out of scope for this GR, I would have preferred if the text of the GR were completely silent about this topic... > (And in the latter case, > totally out of the scope of any GR.) [If it's too difficult to > separate considering what a text currently says versus considering > what one wishes it said, there's not much I can do to help.] I think I see what you mean: reaffirming the current situation is different from saying that it can never be changed. That is true, of course. But, as I said above, I'm not sure that reaffirming what should be changed is a good thing to do... -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpg1cLdAyHof.pgp
Description: PGP signature