On Saturday 11 June 2005 01:51 pm, Joe Smith wrote: > >flexability, but can you point to the particular clause that you feel > > hints at this sort of a requirement/prohibition? > > Nope, I can only give you a link but as I understand it the tests are > commonly used. > > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
Well now, this strikes me as a problem.... from a political science perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a self-appointed group of various legal, political, an philosophical stripes, is making substantive policy decisions based on thin air? The three thought experiment tests, while nice and good, fail traditional structural tests because they are not rationally based. Absent a rational basis there is no way to disagree with them, and absent ammasing a super-majority to change the DFSG to repudiate the tests, they seem to be locked in stone. U.S. Courts, love of 'em or hate 'em, base everything they do two sources: 1) previous decisions, 2) decisions made by elected officials or their appointees. Debian-legal seems to have adopted #1, but failing #2 it chooses instead to insert its own opinion. Which brings us back to the self-selected nature of the group. I don't want to be the wacko who just goes off on a long standing system that, all things considered, seem to be working pretty well... but I also know that our the new DPL has made it pretty clear that he wants Debian institutions to be looked at to make sure they are actually doing the Project's work. Perhaps this is the time to seriously consider how debian-legal functions and on what sort of basis it makes decisions. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg 2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org] w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com So, let go �...Jump in � ...Oh well, what you waiting for? � �...it's all right � � ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
