Steve McIntyre wrote: > David Nusinow writes: > >>2) Steve McIntyre has continually suggested codifying the various things in >>the >>DFSG. I fully agree with this. If you really truly believe that your >>interpretations are shared by the rest of the project, then you have nothing >>to >>fear from this, and you only stand to gain. > > But it seems that codifying the more common non-free clauses would > remove some of the ambiguities in the DFSG, and then people on -legal > would have less to hand-wave about. That seems to be a core > objection...
No, I think the main objection is that many people don't want to consider the hand-waving arguments at all, and think everything that can't be precisely related to some specific DFSG point should be considered Free. I dislike the idea that every new clause would require modifying the DFSG, and that clauses which have not yet been prohibited would be allowed. With that in mind, what if we just amended the DFSG to include a statement at the top explicitly acknowledging the "Guidelines" interpretation, and pointing out that the DFSG is not an exhaustive list of allowable license clauses? That way, it is clearer that the DFSG cannot be used as a checklist, and that general-consensus interpretations about a license are valid. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
