Ean, could you explain to Thomas why you think we should have one definition of Free Software?
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: > > More than anything else, I'm wanting to see if it's at all possible to > > work with you. What I'd really like to do is let debian-legal judge > > licenses, and have OSI rubber-stamp your decision. In order to do > > that, though, you'd need to modify the OSD so that it reflects your > > current understanding of the DFSG and stands on its own. > > OSD is perfectly free to rubber stamp our decisions. But you are the > ones in the business of official certification, we are not. We have a > hard enough job doing our job, without trying to take on yours. > > We interpret the DFSG for our purposes, as we always have, and we are > fairly content with what we have and with our processes. > > You want us to modify our processes--why? To make *your* job easier? > To encourage us to start doing your job? Why is this something we > should do? > > >From Day One it has been the insistence of Debian that the DFSG are > *Guidelines*, and NOT a "definition". Your crowd decided they would > work as a "definition", and you are discovering that they don't, which > you were of course told at the time. Now you want *us* to change > *our* guidelines, so that they do work as a definition. WHY on > *earth* should we care about that project? >
