On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 04:06:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > To spell this out a little more clearly: > > I'm not comfortable with calling this license the "Debian Free Content > License" -- or the "Debian" anything, for that matter -- if the license > can be exercised in such a way that the work isn't DFSG-free. > > To do so would feel hypocritical to me. If we're going to put our name > on it, we need to not be turning around and saying "well, yeah, it's our > license, but we STILL won't let you into main with it". That's just > going to aggravate people even more than they already are.
Do The Right Thing. If doing so exposes flaws in the DFSG, they need to be changed, rather than hobbling the work-in-progress to fit with guidelines which may or may not have adequately considered the present situation. Yes, I realise that this may be difficult. However, you could always come up with an "ideal" version, and a "current-DFSG-compliant" version, and include a clause similar to the GPL's "or any subsequent version", so that if/when the DFSG catch up with The Right Thing, then the ideal license can be used. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give him an evasive answer. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
