On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Raul Miller wrote: > Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are > "Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being > guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract > and the constitution.
There was a large discussion on debian-legal dealing almost exclusively with this issue in the context of changing the DFSG to a document more like the OSD.[1] Some of the specific cases mentioned are instances where the OSD has enabled licenses like Helix's RSPL and/or Apple's APSL to be labled as open source licenses, even though they are quite clearly non-free, and can impose odious restrictions on users of the software.[2] Because the OSD is a definition, instead of merely guidelines, things that follow the letter and fail the spirit can slide by. Changing the DFSG into a set of "Requirements", if not properly done, could foreseeably suffer the same fate. Don Armstrong 1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200301/msg00046.html 2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200301/msg00095.html -- If I had a letter, sealed it in a locked vault and hid the vault somewhere in New York. Then told you to read the letter, thats not security, thats obscurity. If I made a letter, sealed it in a vault, gave you the blueprints of the vault, the combinations of 1000 other vaults, access to the best lock smiths in the world, then told you to read the letter, and you still can't, thats security. -- Bruce Schneier http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
