Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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".
You just have not been around long enough ;) The desert island test was first mentioned in 2002 in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/01/msg00010.html The first time someone tried writing down all of these tests was in Mar 2003 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00460.html The page cited in that email still exists at http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
