On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 06:18:50AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: > In reaction to this thread I have added an item to address this > question to > > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html > > which I believe summarizes the consensus here, as well as the > expressed opinion and intent of the FSF regarding the "or later" > clause.
Yuck. There's a lot of off-topic stuff in there--questions unimportant to the interpretation and use of the DFSG. (This is one--it belongs in the FSF's GPL FAQ, if anywhere.) I couldn't point somebody wanting to know about the DFSG to this, since it tangents too much into other stuff. It's like pointing somebody wanting to know about a debate to list archives. Is this stuff really necessary? Just at a glance, 19, 22, 23, 24, 28, 30, and 32 don't seem to be about the DFSG or its use at all. I'm not sure that there's any consensus on "almost-free licenses"; it's not clear what that even means, and that's reflected by "XXX". (Certainly we have "non-free licenses"--"pet a cat"--and "really non-free licenses"-- "kill a cat"--but "almost-free" doesn't seem very meaningful.) Are 20 and 21 necessary? BTW: I'd add "... the FSF's " to 33. There's a lot of information to be presented about the DFSG; it's a lot harder to do so effectively if the document is allowed to tangent into any and all matters related to free software. -- Glenn Maynard
