Re: DFSG4 and combined works
Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> writes:
> The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> do whatever we want with it.
>
> The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> adapt it to various needs and to improve it.
This is a false dilemma, of course.
Moreover, if by "various needs" you mean an unspecified list, then
these are the same. If you mean some specified list, then it is clear
no such list exists at present in Debian, for you cannot point to any
record of what is on the list and what is not.
> The Debian developers have the right to determine which way Debian
> will go and I hope our secretary will give them this right. Whatever
> the developers decide, a determined Debian will be better for everyone
> than the current Debian with no clear policy.
Of course they have that right, and Manoj has said nothing different.
However, because your suggestion amounts to a change in the DFSG and
the Social Contract, it requires a 3:1 vote.
What thoroughly disgusts me here is the following history:
1) There was a resolution (remember, yall?) to remove the non-free
archive from Debian. Call the advocates of this resolution the
"frogs" and its opponents the "toads".
2) This resolution failed. The toads won.
3) There were toads who were worried that the resolution would be
constantly renewed by the froms, and that we would have GR after GR
proposing the same thing.
4) The frogs have not continually introduced the same resolution, but
instead, have let the matter drop unless there is a real reason to
think the situation has changed.
5) Then another resolution came, to amend the Social Contract to say
that the DFSG would apply equally to all works in Debian, with
specific attention to and awareness of the GFDL as one of the key
licenses that would thus be excluded. Call the people who
supported this resolution the "wasps", and its opponents the
"bees".
6) This time the wasps won. The resolution passed.
7) The bees proceeded to claim that the resolution was unfairly
announced, shouldn't have passed, and was totally illegitimate.
8) A resolution was put forth to postpone the effects of the amendment
until after the release of sarge. Other options on the ballot
included one that outright rescinded the wasps' resolution, and one
that had no postponement of the implementation, so that it would
apply to sarge.
9) The bees once again lost, though the postponement measure passed.
10) And now, ONE MORE TIME, the bees are at it.
What makes this entirely disgusting, is that the bees have extremely
large overlap with the toads; the wasps with the frogs.
There is, you see, this substantial set of toads/bees who thought it
was horrible to contemplate the idea of continual reintroducing of the
frogs' resolution. And yet, when it's their side in the *substantial*
minority, there are continual attempts to reintroduce the same damn
resolution, now for a *third* vote.
So, Anton, the developers *have*, in fact, voted on this very question
twice already. Give it a rest.
Thomas
Reply to: