Glenn Maynard writes: >On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 12:35:54AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> 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.
Clearly. >Likeways, adding "must not force distribution of source to anyone >other than the recipient" implies that this isn't already required by >DFSG#1. And this is exactly the kind of thing that needs clearing up, and you know it. There is still significant debate about whether or not DFSG#1 actually means that. If we're actually going to do anything constructive about the license discussions here, then why not agree them and codify them _clearly_ in the DFSG? That way DDs looking for license guidance might actually be able to refer to the DFSG *alone* without having to spend ages waiting for a -legal debate to happen. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I can't ever sleep on planes ... call it irrational if you like, but I'm afraid I'll miss my stop" -- Vivek Dasmohapatra
