On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:35:44PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > And this is exactly the kind of thing that needs clearing up, and you > know it. There is still significant debate about whether or not DFSG#1 > actually means that. > > If we're actually going to do anything constructive about the license > discussions here, then why not agree them and codify them _clearly_ in > the DFSG? That way DDs looking for license guidance might actually be > able to refer to the DFSG *alone* without having to spend ages waiting > for a -legal debate to happen.
I don't think adding lots of new guidelines to the DFSG, codifying the entire body of d-legal case law, and forcing d-legal to put every discussion to a GR, is a workable solution; and that's what I see following from this. -- Glenn Maynard