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

Re: Question about GR-2006-004

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: pgpNYJNbGn07W.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: