On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Russell Nelson wrote: > Sam Hartman writes: > > >>>>> "Russell" == Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Russell> Why not change the DFSG? > > > > Currently we have some organizational issues that make it rather > > difficult for us to change the DFSG even if we want to. > > That's an explanation of why it's hard to change the DFSG (thank you > for writing it), not a reason not to change the DFSG.
It's an explanation of why it's harder than it may seem, and therefore would require a benefit beyond "the process can be made clearer" or "it would be nice for OSI and Debian to match". At this point, I think the best way to approach this might be for OSI to improve its definition, and then when/if it becomes easier or more desirable for Debian to change the DFSG there will be a good template to steal from :) IMO, convergence isn't a goal in itself, though it's nice to have. It seems to me that it would naturally occur as a side-effect of all parties 1) agreeing on the undefinable basis of measurement (i.e. "open source" vs "free software", "strict definition" vs "consensus flameocracy"); and 2) wanting to be clear about their beliefs. I have no opinion about #1 - I don't know all that much about OSI. I think OSI and Debian can and should strive for #2 seperately (and help each other with suggestions, when asked). If #2 (which takes years, and never ends) doesn't result in moving closer to each other, it may be due to #1. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
