Glenn Maynard writes: >On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:09:06PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> 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. > >I certainly have no desire to waste time arguing about arbitrary termination >clauses and other things that seem obviously and extremely non-free, but >"fixing" annoying mailing list threads by changing founding documents is a >bad idea. > >I don't think "tightening up" is a good thing; that implies, to me, that >the project will be less able to deal later with new non-free restrictions; >there are more and more of those on a daily basis, and modifying the DFSG >on a daily basis is bad. However, your notion of "tightening" may not be >the same as mine. Let's stop being vague: if you have a suggested change >to the DFSG, let's hear it, so we can talk about it specifically.
An example: several people here seem to believe that specifying a legal venue in a license is non-free. Take that to a vote as a DFSG amendment. If the vote is carried, then we have agreement amongst DDs. If not, we clearly as a project consider it free. Either way, we can stop the fruitless debate that's been pinging backwards and forwards for months if not years. This is a common bugbear in many licenses that is'nt going to go away any time soon... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky, Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I...
