Re: GR idea related to ongoing licensing discussions
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:25:06AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> 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;
Which is a problem, why?
Clarity never hurt anyone.
> - it makes the guidelines longer, so will make checking packages
> against the guidelines more tedious;
I don't think so; on the contrary, actually. These tests are used now
already anyway; formalizing them will just make things much clearer.
> - it seems to be pandering to literalists in a similar way to the
> Editorial Changes GR and that hasn't really ended those arguments;
Sorry, but that's not true. The EC GR did indeed not end those arguments
_immediately_, but they haven't been brought up anywhere I can see in a
> - I think that the second addition disallows things like pseudonyms,
> which I think we have accepted in the past.
That could probably be fixed by some wording changes, I suppose.
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22