On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:39:42PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >In the end, we still come back to the fact that we're dealing with a > >set of guidelines that needs to be thoughtfully applied to a > >license. For many of these cases, there's no known bright line test, > >where X is free, and Y is non free. [See the OSD v DFSG threads for > >more examples...] > > The DFSG clearly needs to be tightened up and clarified, then. Or is > the point of debate on -legal simply to justify the existence of > -legal?
If you're going to argue that the DFSG should be changed from a set of guidelines (which, by definition, require interpretation and human judgement to apply) into a definition, which can be implemented by robots, please say so. You seem to think it's a bug that the DFSG doesn't have bright-line tests for every possible non-free requirement; such tests don't exist. -- Glenn Maynard
