On Sat, Feb 20, 1999 at 12:05:27PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
<snip>
> I still think it would be a much better idea to fix these holes with
> incremental amendments to the DFSG, so that the effect of each can be
> carefully considered. It took us more than a year to discover all the
> ramifications of the DFSG.
Agreed...
<snip>
> If the number of questions about licenses are a problem, then
> we could just start a license FAQ. For example, the "without fee"
> question pops up regularly. That's something that no amount
> of DFSG drafting will clear up.
Also agreed..
> > > 3. You should probably give up the G in DFSG, as these no longer seem
> > > guidelines, but a more precise, legalistic attempt to define exactly
> > > what free software is and isn't.
> > Again, it's *not* an attempt to be legalistic. The opposite, it's an
> > attempt to be clear. Clearer than the current DFSG.
>
> I like the G, in fact. Sure, it's a bit silly to use phrases like
> "... does not comply with our guidelines". But calling them
> Guidelines at least allows us to make sane judgements about weird
> license clauses that aren't covered by them.
And again...
I guess what this amounts to is that I agree with Dark here...
> Richard Braakman
Zephaniah E. Hull..
--
PGP EA5198D1-Zephaniah E. Hull <warp@whitestar.soark.net>-GPG E65A7801
Keys available at http://whitestar.soark.net/~warp/public_keys.
CCs of replies from mailing lists are encouraged.
Attachment:
pgpmhKtr3ztaG.pgp
Description: PGP signature