On 27 April 2014 13:16, Solal <solal.rast...@me.com> wrote: >>> The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do >>> not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves >>> issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited, >>> trademarks limited, etc. >>> >>> GFDL is free, because Invariant Sections are free if used in opinions >>> (nobody want peoples modify their opinion in a text). The GFDL prohibit >>> the use of Invariant Sections in technic texts. >>> >>> The only case where a software respects FSD but not DFSG is good. That >>> can be a software which prohibit the use of proprietary software in >>> aggregates. >>> This is good, totally ethical, and I think a license should do that for >>> protect uers from proprietary. >>> >>> The cases where a software respects DFSG but not respects FSD are bad. >>> For example, a software which prohibit the distribution of modified >>> versions respects DFSG if it authorize patch files. >>> But it's unethical. >>> >>> In some years, the patch will maybe be incompatible with the new version. >>> The Debian project authorize that (but encourage to do not do that, but >>> that's not suffiscient). >>> >>> The Debian project authorize too certain licenses which is too vague for >>> talk about free (the Artistic License 1.0, for example). >>> >>> The DFSG is really bad, too laxist and useless. >> >> I see that you don't like the DFSG. But as already has been said: We >> are Debian and follow our own contract and not a contact of some other >> project/company. >> I think if you have problems with the DFSG you should propose changes >> to improve it instead of saying we should drop it and follow someone >> else. >> >> PS: Please don't top-post. >> >> Regards >> Sven > > I understand you do not want use a someone else's contract, but the FSDG > are an anagream of DFSG, so that's the same... No, I joke. > There are a lot of things to change in the DFSG, but why change the > DFSG, the better contract is created : that's the FSDG! I do not see any > problems for using it! >
Even if all options are equal (and they are not here) there is also a cost of change to consider. And typically one needs compelling reasons/benefits to overcome the cost of changes (be it amendments to DFSG and/or adoption of FSDG). Also apart from "switch to FSDG" you have not yet provided any valid argumentation. Debian welcomes participation from everyone, as long as it's done in a constructive manner. And given the community we have, that also typically means using quantitative & critically thought-through argumentation. I'd recommend for you to learn more about Debian project, study Debian Constitution, read past resolutions and changes proposed, how successful/failed resolutions got proposed, study Debian Organisational structure & delegations, join debian-legal/debian-project mailing list, etc. before continuing this discussion. -- Regards, Dimitri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/canbhlugdtuxdq_adecv2tntxivqi3bqafdpnv2gx3_+k686...@mail.gmail.com
