On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote: > FSF's definition of Free Software --> Constitution > Debian Free Software Guidelines --> statutory law > debian-legal discussions --> case law
.... > So debian-legal, in our role as judges and arbitrators, attempt to > interpret the DFSG and the licenses brought before us. But we do this > in a context -- an *important* context, which is our understanding of > what freedom means. This is another reason we should not be overly > literal in our interpretations of the DFSG, and blithely brand a license > as "DFSG-free" it seems to abide by letter of the DFSG in its narrowest > reading, but poses a threat to our users or Free Software that we did > not have the foresight to articulate in the DFSG. ... > What do you folks think of my paradigm? Useful or not? I think it's brilliant. But I think it will not reduce disputes, only metadisputes (like the parent thread). Since you've standardized on common law, there's also stare decisis, and debian-legal gets to make up tests like the Desert Island and Chinese Dissident tests without complaints of legislating from the bench. I also think it's brilliant, because it means that I won't have to metadispute when I suggest again that we look at DFSG 3 compliance via the "least restrictive means" / "compelling Free Software interest" analysis that I proposed during the AGPL thread. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 "On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson