* Sean Kellogg :: > 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? Nope. Debian-legal only debates the issues and sometimes, if we are lucky, reaches some kind of consensus about them. Who makes the substantive policy decisions about the licenses: the ftpmasters. Then, if any debianer is against those decisions, he/she has access to constitutional remedies. > 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 Why aren't they rationally based? I mean, really, they seem pretty rationally based to me. All of the tests (as are the DFSG) are designed to protect the freedom of "speech" the software freedom is about. > 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. #2 are the ftpmasters, the debian-legal is a "consulting body" whose consensus is generally (but not always) followed by ftpmasters. > > 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. The problem is that you are basing your conclusions in wrong assumptions.
-- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
