On Sun, 06 Feb 2005, Glenn L McGrath wrote: > For debian-legal to abide by Debians Social Contract, i think > someone should be attempting to "exhaustively list non-free > restrictions".
This would involve the formation of a definition, instead of a set of guidelines. > I think a vote should be required, and the DFSG changed before > debian-legal assumes the right to impose any new restrictions. debian-legal isn't the group that imposes restrictions. Its entire purpose is to assist the ftpmasters and maintainers in determining whether a piece of software is Free under the DFSG, to help maintainers communicate with their upstream to get software released under a Free license, and to discuss other legal issues affecting Debian. That being said, you're still looking at this from the wrong angle. We're here[1] to preserve our freedom to modify and distribute modified software, not to sacrifice useful freedoms to include anything in Debian. While we should tie everything we can back to specific clauses and interpretations of the DFSG, there's no reason to allow software that is clearly non-free into Debian simply because it artfully avoids the letter of the DFSG. Don Armstrong 1: I hope that's why you all are here anyway... as it's one of the reasons I am. -- It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong -- Chris Torek http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]