On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 12:35:54AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Glenn Maynard writes: > >On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 05:56:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > >> I also think that this would be good to try and add to the DFSG. I > >> think it would make a position we've tacidly had here on -legal much > >> more clear than it is now. > > > >I think it derives directly from DFSG#1--certainly the spirit, even if > >the letter is debated. I think adding new guidelines that are subsets > >of existing ones would set a very bad precedent, since it implies that > >the DFSG is to be read literally, as a set of rules, instead of a set of > >guidelines. > > Do you not believe that would be better than the current situation > where we have regular disagreements on some of this?
No, I don't. More clearly: I don't think a situation where we're forced to read the DFSG as a set of rules (eg. like the OSD) is an improvement. I think adding guidelines which are already in the DFSG will move us in that direction. That is, adding a guideline "must allow derived works on Tuesdays" seems to imply that derived works on Tuesdays is not, in fact, covered by DFSG#3--as it clearly is. Likeways, adding "must not force distribution of source to anyone other than the recipient" implies that this isn't already required by DFSG#1. -- Glenn Maynard
