* Glenn L McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050206 00:25]:
I understand that the DFSG is a Guideline, those guidlines are
open to interpretation, and debian legal is seen as the authoritive
place to interperate the DFSG in new or changing conditions.
No, debian-legal is _not_ authoritive. However,
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 18:40:14 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
You're saying that Debian should maintain an exhaustive list of
non-free restrictions, that (presumably) adding to that list should be
require a GR, and that no restrictions not on that list should be
considered free until voted on.
Glenn L McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think if a licence has been accepted as complying with the Open Source
Definition, then the burden of proof should be on on the people who want
it excluded from debian. [...]
You think debian should be bound by a buggy derived project's decisions?
For
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 04:06:32AM +1100, Glenn L McGrath wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 13:40:10 -0500
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I've already explained how this relates to the DFSG, despite the DFSG
not attempting to exhaustively list non-free restrictions.)
I understand that
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005, Glenn L McGrath wrote:
For debian-legal to abide by Debians Social Contract, i think
someone should be attempting to exhaustively list non-free
restrictions.
This would involve the formation of a definition, instead of a set of
guidelines.
I think a vote should be
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 20:42:41 -0500
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now you're saying that very clearly non-free things like eat rats, pet a
cat, etc. undermine any judgments based on the DFSG? That's nonsense.
You cant see the wood for the trees.
This is going nowhere, ive unsubscribed
6 matches
Mail list logo
