On 27-Jan-03, 12:57 (CST), Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > > 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.
>
> You seem uninterested in compromise. I hope you do not carry the day.
You seem to be defining "compromise" as "Converting the DFSG to the
OSD". Why can't compromise be "Each group having its own document that
suits the purposes of the group?" Our groups have different goals,
different priorities, and different personalities, if you will. We've
never[1] claimed that the DFSG serves any other use than providing
Debian with a rough working definition of "free software", for the
purpose of determining whether or not a particular program can be in
Debian. That it has gain widespread acceptance is a tribute to the fact
that it is a fairly short list of fairly clear requirements[2]. Tarting
it up in legalese and detail isn't going to make it any shorter or
clearer.
Steve
[1] I'd guess that somewhere, sometime, some member of Debian has made
other claims about it.
[2] Also, that it wasn't written by RMS, although he defined basically
the same things ~20 years ago.
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
