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

Re: GR idea related to ongoing licensing discussions

mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:

>Maybe relocating, but not on VAC AFAICS and still active on various
This is not what I claimed.

>> Can't you come up with anything better than this?
>Why do I need to?  Can you show that those DFSG-1-revisionists exist?
DFSG revisionists are the people holding one or more of these beliefs,
which were not usually accepted by developers when I joined the project:
- the DFSG 1.1 just clarifies the meaning of the DSFG 1.0 and does not
  actually imposes new rules about what is acceptable in Debian
- the dissident test, the desert island test, the moose test, etc are
  implied by the DFSG
- reasoning schemes like "even if everybody used to agree that the DFSG
  had to be interpreted as X we now believe that it really meant Y != X"
- various other minor beliefs about what the DFSG means which were not
  commonly accepted by developers some years ago, among them the "every
  restriction is a fee" (possibly for multiple values of "every") which
  you are defending here

Analysis of the debian-legal@ archive can show that there are such
people, therefore DFSG revisionists as previously defined exist.

(Hopefully even you will be able to understand that this description is
not rigorous in the mathematical sense, so please refrain from nitpick.)

>If not, stop trolling.
Accusing people who oppose your views of "trolling" shows lack of
dialectic skills.


Reply to: