Glenn Maynard writes: >> >> 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.
As time goes on and we get more consensus on what we consider free and non-free, there should be more precedent set. In common cases, license clauses and restrictions that we consider unambiguously to be non-free should be marked as such in the DFSG. Otherwise we'll never make any progress on these issues. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if people debating licenses here actually _want_ there to be progress, or if the debate _itself_ is the raison d'etre. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "This dress doesn't reverse." -- Alden Spiess
