[Anthony DeRobertis] > If a simple majority can yell, "there is no inconsistency" then the > 3:1 requirement has little meaning. I think it'd be reasonable to > request that people who believe [0] is wrong should produce reasoned > arguments against it; to the best of my knowledge (and memory, of > course), no one has done so. I just reread the position statement looking for the DFSG violations. I was surprised to see that beyond the extensive commentary on invariant-this-and-that, the only actual DFSG violation mentioned is a small point about anonymous modification (the problem with changelogs and Chinese dissidents). And it's not entirely clear to me whether the "onerous changelog requirement" (§4B,H) has any teeth if the original copyright holder specifies that there be no immutable bits. Did I miss other DFSG problems mentioned in the position statement? It seemed to me that the rest was about "mere" annoyances, like forcing CD vendors to ship source CDs whether or not customers order them, and forbidding the use of rsync-over-ssh for CD images.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature