> > > > Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are > > > > "Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being > > > > guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract and > > > > the constitution.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:44:57PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > I very strongly object to that. > > > > > > http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/wrong/dfsg_guidelines.html > > > explains what "guidelines" means here. It is the correct name. On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:50:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > It states: > > > > It is not inconceivable that there may be works which contravene the > > DFSG, but which are still free enough for inclusion in Debian. However, > > a GR would be required (preferably one which modifies the DFSG > > directly) in order for this to occur. No amount of arguing on the > > mailing lists will accomplish it. > > > > This "should" seems rather unreasonable. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:14:47AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > There is no "should". It would be a "must", but there's no "must" here > either. You're nit picking. The precise phrase is "would be required". > > We already have numerous cases of software which does not satisfy all > > the points of the DFSG but which people still believe are free enough > > to be distributed and/or used by Debian. GFDL licensed documentation > > is one rather obvious example. > Yes, GFDL documentation is a rather obvious example that supports my > point; it was the reason for this document in the first place. This > stuff has to get out of main unless a GR is passed permitting it to > stay, despite the fact that some people believe it is free enough for > main. I agree with you on this point. > > It's true that if your resolution passed we would need to pass further > > resolutions to fix the problem you're creating, but at present the above > > paragraph is simply false. > FUD. (And irrelevant, to boot) How so? > > > > Likewise, Andrew has adopted some of his proposal from issues > > > > I've raised. > > > I don't believe that is accurate. > > For example, after I proposed removing the Linux specific wording in > > the social contract, you introduced the same kind of change in yours. > > I did that following the suggestion of somebody on IRC (I forget who), > in December. That's not how I remember it, but looking at the archive I see you're correct. My mistake, I apologize. > > Likewise, after I changed "FTP archive" to "internet archive" in my > > proposal, you changed "FTP archive" to "archive". > > I did that on my own, also in December. Yeah, I missed your second draft -- my mistake. This isn't the first time I made that mistake [I made an earlier post which referred to the absence of these editorial changes], but that just means I made the mistake at least twice. > Both of these were present in the very first draft[0] that I made > public (December 27th). That document was created over the course of > about a week, based on the list archives from October and November, > some suggestions from IRC, and anything I thought up on my own. Yes. > Your first proposal was on January 10th[1], at which point you had > included neither of these modifications - two weeks after I first > published a draft that included them. Yes. > Have you been taking lessons from Darl McBride? This is SCO's > method. I did both of these things before you did. This is a matter of > record, which I have just confirmed in the list archives (I went back > as far as October 2003, when Branden first proposed a social contract > update). I don't know anything about McBride -- this was a mistake on my part. > Please do not migrate from generating FUD to outright breach of > copyright (specifically rights of attribution). This isn't a copyright issue. Also, please state your rationale for your FUD claims. -- Raul
