Scripsit Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Foo on that. The DFSG says "The license must allow modifications and
> derived works..." If it's public domain, there *is* no license.
If it's public domain, the license is "anyone can do whatever he wants
to it".
> The DFSG has a problem.
I think you have an understanding problem.
> It fails to admit that there is unlicensed software which belongs in
> Debian.
No it doesn't.
> That's fine, but what do you do when someone comes along and
> interprets its ambiguity to mean what *they* want?
We tell them that they are free to interpret the DFSG whatever way
they mean, but the interpretation that is going to be used for
deciding to reject a package on license grounds is the one of the
debian-legal consensus (or, failing to reach such a consensus, the
ftpmasters and eventually the project leader).
> And then they insist that their software MUST go into Debian.
Then we're going to get a good laugh.
> If you refuse, they will sue you for reliance
And once more.
> I'm saying that you should fix problems in the DFSG
You're inventing problems that aren't there. There are plenty of
other, real, problems to fix if anybody cares enough about them to
carry them through the flamefest any proposal to change so much as a
comma will cause.
> Yes. I want there to be one and only one definition and set of
> guidelines. Why do you want two?
We don't want two, we have only one.
--
Henning Makholm "Hører I. Kald dem sammen. Så mange som overhovedet
muligt. Jeg siger jer det her er ikke bare stort. Det er
Stortstortstort. Det er allerhelvedes stort. Det er historiEN."
