Andrew McMillan <and...@morphoss.com> writes: > On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 18:06 -0400, CJ Fearnley wrote:
>> The DFSG defines freedom in software licenses, but doesn't provide a >> statement of assurance to users. Maybe a statement that Debian main >> supports the Four Freedoms[1][2] would turn the prescriptive DFSG into >> a qualitative benefits statement. > I think that you're treading on thin ground pushing for that. The DFSG > is a defining document in Debian, so if you want to narrow or broaden > that coverage you should be doing so by promoting changes to that > document - not to policy. > Personally I'm happy with the freedoms described by the DFSG as it > stands at present, but if you believe it is flawed you should argue > those flaws in the wider arena of Debian via a GR or such. I don't think CJ is advocating changing the DFSG, but rather is concerned that the way the DFSG is worded may not make it clear to people what the motivation is and what the implications are for users. In other words, a rephrasing or preamble, not any sort of normative modification, that says "this means you can use the software for absolutely anything you want." I can see that point, although I'm not sure that it makes that much difference for Policy, since Policy is largely aimed at people who are reasonably familiar with Debian and are looking for technical guidance. I would tend to point people at http://www.debian.org/intro/free or some similar sort of place to explain the motivation and background for what Debian means by free. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
