> > 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. 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. 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. 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. > > 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. Likewise, after I changed "FTP archive" to "internet archive" in my proposal, you changed "FTP archive" to "archive". -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
