On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:37:56PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > This is a totally valid concern, and I'm glad it keeps coming up, but I don't > feel like it's enough to paralyze any attempt to modify the DFSG. I'm > definitely against haphazardly modifying foundational documents (and the > recent > GR showed many ways how such a thing should not be handled) but at least > attempting to do so might be warranted.
Sure, I'm not trying to do that. I havn't seen any proposed amendments to pick apart, though, except for the special case for choice of venue. > One possibility for something like -legal-announce would be to post an initial > mail like "Someone has requested that foo license be reviewed for package bar. > This license also applies to packages bas, etc". This would let people > subscribe to a low volume list, and if anything they're interested in goes > under review, they could join the discussion. I could see posting these things > to -devel or -devel-announce, but this strikes me as rather ugly. It's fairly easy to say "we're debating the QPL; this may affect these packages ...", but it's very hard to do the same for a specific restriction, which is probably what you're really looking for. The best that could be hoped for is common language to grep for, which usually works to a degree, but it's not reliable ... -- Glenn Maynard
