Re: New DFSG v1.0aj
Hi,
>>"Darren" == Darren Benham <gecko@benham.net> writes:
Darren> Why not move on with this? From what I could tell (I'll keep
Darren> going over it to be sure), there's really nothing different
Darren> with the DFSG1 in substance....
And therin lies my objection. I find the new DFSG to be far
more, umm, obfuscatory, than what it is trying to replace. A
guideline needs to be well understoold to work, as oppposed to a set
or rules, which have to be airtight against bunches of arch chair
lawyers.
The original DFSG held clauses that were (IMHO) relevant. The
new one has statements that make me scratching my head and exclaiming
"Fie FEE fo-FUM. There was a lawyer here".
The license must remain valid until voluntarily terminated by the
licensee.
The license must allow anyone who has legally obtained the work to
use it in any way.
The new version has "Source code must be available." as
opposed to "The program must include source code, and must allow
distribution in source code as well as compiled form."
Now, if this new version allows the compiled form
distribution, or requires it, I can't tell. And the act that I can't
tell is more important than whether it does or not: the replacement
DFSG can't be more obfuscatory than what it is replacing.
So here is one objection to the new wording.
manoj
concerned about the rewording: sequels rarely are as good as the original
--
42
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: