On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:49:54PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: > 2) Besides that, there are at least four definitions of "free > software": the OSD, the DFSG, the DFSG as interpreted by debian-legal, > and RMS's definition.
This seems to be the root of the issue: the DFSG is _not_ a definition. It is a set of guidelines. Guidelines are only meaningful when they are applied (which is not the same as interpreting them), and as far as I know Debian is the only entity currently applying these guidelines. So there is no "the DFSG" separate from "the DFSG as interpreted by debian-legal", and neither of those is a "definition" anyway. You keep trying to treat the DFSG as a definition, probably out of habit from working with the OSD. That's simply not going to work. If you want a meeting of minds here, then you'll have to address this fundamental difference. I'll try to give it a start: Do you think that Debian _should_ move from using guidelines to using a definition? If so, what's the benefit? Do you understand the risks we see, and do you have an answer for those? If not, then what kind of convergence do you have in mind? Same text, different application? Some kind of hybrid between the two approaches? What does the OSI currently do with licenses that meet the OSD but are egregiously non-free? (As a practical example, I don't see anything in the OSD that would rule out a license that expires at a certain date.) Richard Braakman
