On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 11:02:57PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > There might be a case where we are seeing a common clause in licenses > where there is significant belief on -legal that it might make a > license non-free but it cannot be clearly, explicitly (unanimously?) > tied back to existing clauses in the DFSG. Current topical examples > would "choice of venue" and "clashes with some national laws". > > After some discussion, if there is significant opinion here that such > a clause *is* non-free, a DFSG change should be proposed to make that > explicit. That way we can get the opinion and mandate of the general > population of DDs to *actually* *explicitly* claim that such clauses > are non-free. When something is in the DFSG, we have much more of a > case to make to upstream authors than "<foo> on debian-legal doesn't > like it. > > I'm not saying that disagreement *itself* should cause a GR (as > somehow you seemed to believe I was saying). Do you understand me now?
Regardless of the trigger, adding "choice of venue is non-free" to the DFSG will start a tendency to enumerate non-free things. Adjusting the DFSG to better express our intentions is useful; special casing individual clauses is a hack. > Quite. As time goes on with me following -legal, I'm understanding > more and more why most DDs really have no inclination to pay any > attention at all to the pointless discussions that go on here. The > rest of Debian actually gets on with productive work... As does d-legal. (By your tone, you clearly have no interest in being convinced otherwise, so I won't waste time debating this.) -- Glenn Maynard
