On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:35:31PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > DFSG. I fully agree with this. If you really truly believe that your > interpretations are shared by the rest of the project, then you have nothing > to > fear from this, and you only stand to gain.
We fear that as soon as we special-case something in the DFSG it will be used as a fulcrum for splitting hairs even finer. "Our special case isn't banned by the DFSG, but these other ones are, so obviously the DFSG was intended to be proscriptive, therefore our special case is free and our gratuitously non-free licence should be permitted". AKA "The DFSG Arms Race". We keep throwing GRs around every couple of months to say "this sucks", and then someone who wants to play word games comes up with another truly non-free licence clause which isn't covered by one of the special cases in the DFSG. That being said, I think there are a few items of wording that need to be addressed (DFSG #1 in particular can be read a wide number of different ways depending on one's desires), and one or two extra "wide sweeping" clauses wouldn't go astray, but they need to be *very* carefully considered. Even the wording changes would likely have an effect similar to the recent "editorial amendments" GR. - Matt
