On Wednesday 27 February 2008 07:21:27 pm Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: > On 27-02-2008 23:13, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > On Wednesday 27 February 2008 04:20:56 pm Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> So long as you add the rider that some of the debian-legal > >> subscribers believe it (and some of the other common "tests") > >> are ridiculously contrived and bogus. > > > > And not grounded in the specific language of the DFSG but rather > > a shared aspiration of what the document "ought" to say. I have > > never seen an attempt to tie the three tests to specific points > > and thus it is impossible to debate and discuss the test > > themselves... it has become assumed knowledge. > > Ahhmm... during NM, candidates must tie DFSG points > with the three tests, you can even find debates on -legal > about which points each test addresses.
Ahhmm?! I've been subscribed to d-l for around five years now and I have never seen anyone tie a test to a DFSG point even though folks have asked. In fact, it wasn't until someone posted the wikipedia article on the DFSG that I've seen the three tests spelled out "on paper". Not trying to be difficult here, but those supporting these tests have never met the burden, in my mind, of connecting DFSG points with these supposed "short hand" rules... and every attempt I, and others, have made to question them is generally ignored. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
