On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 02:25:13PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 11:02:57PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > After some discussion, if there is significant opinion here that such > > a clause *is* non-free, a DFSG change should be proposed to make that > > explicit. That way we can get the opinion and mandate of the general > > population of DDs to *actually* *explicitly* claim that such clauses > > are non-free. When something is in the DFSG, we have much more of a > > case to make to upstream authors than "<foo> on debian-legal doesn't > > like it. > > > > I'm not saying that disagreement *itself* should cause a GR (as > > somehow you seemed to believe I was saying). Do you understand me now? > > Regardless of the trigger, adding "choice of venue is non-free" to the > DFSG will start a tendency to enumerate non-free things. Adjusting the > DFSG to better express our intentions is useful; special casing individual > clauses is a hack.
I'm not sure I agree here. I feel like the DFSG has special casing of individual clauses scattered throughout the document, such as 6 and 8, and that adding a choice of venue clause guideline would fit with those just fine. That said, I'd rather any sort of amendment be written according to the real meat of the issue, rather than simply saying "The license can't have a choice of venue clause." - David Nusinow
