Re: GR idea related to ongoing licensing discussions
MJ Ray <email@example.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: [...]
>> The DFSG are hereby amended to add the following additional guideline:
>> 10. No Required Contribution of Changes [...]
>> 11. No Required Identity Disclosure [...]
> I think this is a bad idea because:
> - it is introducing redundancy into the guidelines - these are already
> covered by DFSGs 1 and 5;
I dealt with this in my original message. For the record, I'm one of the
people who doesn't believe this is the case without straining the reading
of those two points. I think the belief that the existing guidelines
clearly imply this is to some degree debian-legal group-think.
I don't mean that term as an insult. Group-think is inevitable and
unavoidable in any working group that regularly has the same discussions.
They've been applied for so long and the arguments have been stated and
restated for so long, mostly in the absence of anyone who feels
differently, that it would be surprising if regular debian-legal
contributors *didn't* feel this way. However, I don't think that makes it
true for the rest of the project who do not participate regularly in those
Also, that doesn't make them bad guidelines necessarily. It does mean
that if we're going to apply them, they should be explicitly stated.
> - it makes the guidelines longer, so will make checking packages
> against the guidelines more tedious;
Checking packages is even more tedious when one has to apply rules present
only in unofficial FAQs.
> - it seems to be pandering to literalists in a similar way to the
> Editorial Changes GR and that hasn't really ended those arguments;
I disagree strongly with the latter part of that statement. Various
people are still *upset* about the Editorial Changes GR, but at least from
where I'm sitting, it did a lot to resolve the *argument*. In other
words, there are far fewer people now arguing that the project really does
intend to allow non-free documentation in main. There are more people
upset about the fact that the project doesn't want to do this, but that's
inevitable and more honest than the previous state.
> - I think that the second addition disallows things like pseudonyms,
> which I think we have accepted in the past.
Yes, wordsmithing is definitely needed on both.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>