This message has taken a lot of thought to reply to. Your reasons are convincing -- if some facet of freedom cannot be justified through the DFSG, they should be amended to include it. Failed amendments likely indicate that the perception that this was an important facet of freedom is wrong.
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, have you found something non-free that cannot be justified by the > DFSG? Would you be willing wo work on wording for a modification to > the DFSG? If you need sponsors I would be happy to help. I don't think that the QPL requires any changes to the DFSG to be clearly non-free. That is, the choice-of-venue clause and the full publication of any distributed change both have clear grounding in the DFSG. Before this issue comes up again with a more closely worded license, I do think there's an aspect of freedom generally recognized by people here which *should* be part of the DFSG. It wasn't a big deal in the free-software community when the DFSG was written, but it's become so since. It's the second biggest distinction between how the OSI read the same text that we have: the fairness issue that I posted about earlier today. I'd very much like some help in phrasing that properly. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
