On 25 Apr 2014 15:15, "Solal" <solal.rast...@me.com> wrote: > > Why not just take the Free Software Definition[0] instead lose a lot of > time in specific guidelines. > I think use the Free System Distribution Guidelines published by the > FSF[1] is the best way. Use the FSDG instead of the DFSG will : > -Be more efficient instead of lose a lot of time in the DFSG. > -Be sure to be in the 100% free GNU/Linux distros list of the FSF. >
One is not a superset of the other. The two documents are incompatible. As one example each way - In debian, we consider GFDL license with invariant texts to be non-free. Whilst FSDG, disqualifies providing compatible archives of non-free software. How are you measuring efficiency / loosing time here? Given the non-trivial cost of switch and more restrictive terms of FSDG would require more audit and ongoing work. The FSF 100% free list is not a deal-breaker pretty much for everyone. What specific aspects of FSDG do you find to not be met by DFSG? I am not sure if DFSG predates FSDG or not, but DFSG was used as a basis for free software definition as published by Opens Source Initiative (OSI) thus many organisations, including the Linux Foundation, do recognise Debian as a free operating system. To answer the topic of your email - yes by large DFSG has been extremely useful (especially in the early days of pleora of self-written licenses) to current times with established license terms and non-trivial compatibilities between them. It is concise and easy to read and understand. Widely accepted by everyone else. Switching to a different metric will not magically resolved all licensin issues (patents, trademark violations, copyright assignments etc.) nor make upstream tarballs to be magically correct and acceptable. Regards, Dimitri.
