GR idea related to ongoing licensing discussions

Russ Allbery · External Since: Nov 17, 2005 Posts: 780

I should say up front that this is quite possibly a horrible idea.
However, it occurred to me last night and I can't find any obvious flaws,
so I thought I'd toss it out and see how people react.

I am *not* proposing a GR yet. I'm more interested to see what people
think about the idea.

One of the things that's bothered me for a while about licensing
discussions in Debian is that there's a variety of generally accepted lore
that is being used to vet licenses (even by ftpmasters, I believe, or at
least their decisions are consistent with it), but which is not clearly
stated in the DFSG. Some people feel these principles clearly derive from
what the DFSG says. Some people don't. Every time they come up, they
tend to start another argument. I find the ambiguous state both confusing
and unnecessary.

So, how about we settle this once and for all? The DFSG is not an
orthogonal basis for a vector space. The world won't end if we add a new
point to it that some folks feel is redundant with what it already says.
If there's a principle that we're generally applying for licenses, let's
just add it to the DFSG so that it's present in clear and unambiguous
language and everyone knows what the project's position as a whole is.

For example, for the "desert island test" and part of the "dissident
test", what about a GR with the following two ballot options:

The DFSG are hereby amended to add the following additional guideline:

10. No Required Contribution of Changes

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the user
sending their modifications to any third party to whom they have
not distributed the program.

and:

It is the position of the Debian Project that the DFSG does not
prohibit a license from requiring local modifications be contributed
back to the license holder or be made publicly available.
Accordingly, software shall not be ineligible for the main archive
solely due to such a license term.

Similarly, for the rest of the "dissident test," what about a GR with the
following two ballot options:

The DFSG are hereby amended to add the following additional guideline:

11. No Required Identity Disclosure

The license must not require a person modifying the program to
disclose their name or other identifying personal information.

and:

It is the position of the Debian Project that the DFSG does not
prohibit a license from requiring that modifications be identified
with the modifier's name or other reasonable, public information.
Accordingly, software shall not be ineligible for the main archive
solely due to such a license term.

I start with those two because they're the least controversial and have
been part of license analysis for long enough that they're in various FAQs
and in the Wikipedia article on the DFSG, but neither are explicitly
stated in the existing guidelines and there's always some low-level
controversy over whether the existing terms really do imply them.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Ben Pfaff · External Since: May 25, 2004 Posts: 75

Russ Allbery <rra.TakeThisOut@debian.org> writes:

> So, how about we settle this once and for all? The DFSG is not an
> orthogonal basis for a vector space. The world won't end if we add a new
> point to it that some folks feel is redundant with what it already says.
> If there's a principle that we're generally applying for licenses, let's
> just add it to the DFSG so that it's present in clear and unambiguous
> language and everyone knows what the project's position as a whole is.

I am in favor of this. Having participated in the original
discussion that led to the DFSG, I do not believe that it was
intended to be a perfect, never-changing document. I believe
that clarifying answers to questions that have proven problematic
in the past is a positive step for Debian and the DFSG.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Russ Allbery · External Since: Nov 17, 2005 Posts: 780

Russ Allbery <rra RemoveThis @debian.org> writes:

> For example, for the "desert island test" and part of the "dissident
> test", what about a GR with the following two ballot options:

> The DFSG are hereby amended to add the following additional guideline:

> 10. No Required Contribution of Changes

> The rights attached to the program must not depend on the user
> sending their modifications to any third party to whom they have
> not distributed the program.

This is not really a GR so I haven't wordsmithed this yet, but it occurred
to me just after posting it that this should say "to whom they have not
distributed or granted access to the program" (and probably could then use
some grammar cleanup). Otherwise, we prohibit various licenses that
require making the source available to anyone who runs the program, even
if one doesn't give them a copy (think of web applications, for example),
and I both don't think there's a project consensus against such licenses
and don't think that this would be the right place in the DFSG to address
them if there was.

Also, on another note, I didn't cc debian-legal on my original message
just because if people decided this was a horrible idea, I didn't want to
waste the time of more than one list, but any GR proposal clearly should
be cc'd there.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 272

Russ Allbery <rra RemoveThis @debian.org> wrote: [...]
> The DFSG are hereby amended to add the following additional guideline:
> 10. No Required Contribution of Changes [...]
> 11. No Required Identity Disclosure [...]

I think this is a bad idea because:
- it is introducing redundancy into the guidelines - these are already
covered by DFSGs 1 and 5;
- it makes the guidelines longer, so will make checking packages
against the guidelines more tedious;
- it seems to be pandering to literalists in a similar way to the
Editorial Changes GR and that hasn't really ended those arguments;
- I think that the second addition disallows things like pseudonyms,
which I think we have accepted in the past.

However, I would probably support these additions over FD.

Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 272

Russ Allbery <rra.DeleteThis@debian.org> wrote:
> Also, on another note, I didn't cc debian-legal on my original message
> just because if people decided this was a horrible idea, I didn't want to
> waste the time of more than one list, but any GR proposal clearly should
> be cc'd there.

debian-legal contributors, you may like to look at this thread on
debian-vote. I think it's important that those who use the DFSG a lot
take a look before this reaches a firm proposal. Please reply to the
original thread rather than this message.

Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Marco d'Itri · External Since: Jan 21, 2005 Posts: 129

rra.DeleteThis@debian.org wrote:

>I start with those two because they're the least controversial and have
>been part of license analysis for long enough that they're in various FAQs
>and in the Wikipedia article on the DFSG, but neither are explicitly
>stated in the existing guidelines and there's always some low-level
>controversy over whether the existing terms really do imply them.
No, I think there is still high controversy over these criteria, which
appeal mostly the DFSG-revisionsts which a few years ago colonized
debian-legal. I do not believe that they are currently being used by the
ftpmasters, who are the people who actually decide what is DFSG-free or
not.

Are you really looking for more issues over which developers could be
divided?

--
ciao,
Marco

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Marco d'Itri · External Since: Jan 21, 2005 Posts: 129

aj.TakeThisOut@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:

>A good understanding of the effects (ie, providing answers to questions
>like: how common are such clauses? if they don't happen, why complain? if
>they've already happened, how have they caused problems?) seems like a
>good thing to have before making decisions about them.
Agreed. Thank you for the reality check.

--
ciao,
Marco

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 272

Marco d'Itri <md.RemoveThis@Linux.IT> wrote:
> No, I think there is still high controversy over these criteria, which
> appeal mostly the DFSG-revisionsts which a few years ago colonized
> debian-legal. [...]

Marco d'Itri claimed existance of such DFSG-revisionists in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00160.html
(apologies for the "fraudster" shout in my first reply) but went all
quiet when I showed that it looks like non-money fees were DFSG
breaches before debian-legal even existed...

Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Marco d'Itri · External Since: Jan 21, 2005 Posts: 129

mjr DeleteThis @phonecoop.coop wrote:

>Marco d'Itri claimed existance of such DFSG-revisionists in
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00160.html
>(apologies for the "fraudster" shout in my first reply) but went all
>quiet when I showed that it looks like non-money fees were DFSG
>breaches before debian-legal even existed...
Yes, I went all quiet because (as I already explained to you at least
once) I was relocating and staring a new job (which is much more
interesting than posting to Debian lists, so I rarely read them nowadays).
Can't you come up with anything better than this?

--
ciao,
Marco

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Russ Allbery · External Since: Nov 17, 2005 Posts: 780

Marco d'Itri <md.TakeThisOut@Linux.IT> writes:

> No, I think there is still high controversy over these criteria, which
> appeal mostly the DFSG-revisionsts which a few years ago colonized
> debian-legal. I do not believe that they are currently being used by the
> ftpmasters, who are the people who actually decide what is DFSG-free or
> not.

> Are you really looking for more issues over which developers could be
> divided?

No, I'm looking to have a vote so that we can reach a conclusion and a
resolution. Notice that I'm explicitly proposing two ballot options.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 272

Marco d'Itri <md DeleteThis @Linux.IT> wrote:
> mjr DeleteThis @phonecoop.coop wrote:
> >Marco d'Itri claimed existance of such DFSG-revisionists in
> >http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00160.html
> >(apologies for the "fraudster" shout in my first reply) but went all
> >quiet when I showed that it looks like non-money fees were DFSG
> >breaches before debian-legal even existed...
>
> Yes, I went all quiet because (as I already explained to you at least
> once) I was relocating and staring a new job (which is much more
> interesting than posting to Debian lists, so I rarely read them nowadays).

Maybe relocating, but not on VAC AFAICS and still active on various
lists, including debian-legal, for at least a week after the above and
still haven't produced *any* references to suggest that such
DFSG-1-revisionists exist, despite another request in March.

> Can't you come up with anything better than this?

Why do I need to? Can you show that those DFSG-1-revisionists exist?
If not, stop trolling.

Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Russ Allbery · External Since: Nov 17, 2005 Posts: 780

Anthony Towns <aj.RemoveThis@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 12:09:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> For example, for the "desert island test" and part of the "dissident
>> test", what about a GR with the following two ballot options:

> I'd like to see these tests (and others, such as the venue-clause)
> explained and compared to existing licenses (these are some practical
> effects the principles have; these are licenses it affects) first,
> personally. Pages on a wiki or something, if that doesn't sound too
> Samuel L. Jackson.

Yes, I think that would be helpful too.

Just to be clear, if people feel like this is a good idea going forward, I
personally would like to see the people who are applying these tests step
up and do this, in part for practical reasons (I'm not a debian-legal
regular and haven't analyzed nearly as many licenses as people who are).

In other words, I'm not volunteering to take this ball and run with it so
much as throwing out an idea that I think would improve the project
(coming to a firm conclusion on these rules one way or the other) if we
could manage to do it collectively.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Russ Allbery · External Since: Nov 17, 2005 Posts: 780

MJ Ray <mjr.DeleteThis@phonecoop.coop> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra.DeleteThis@debian.org> wrote: [...]

>> The DFSG are hereby amended to add the following additional guideline:
>> 10. No Required Contribution of Changes [...]
>> 11. No Required Identity Disclosure [...]

> I think this is a bad idea because:
> - it is introducing redundancy into the guidelines - these are already
> covered by DFSGs 1 and 5;

I dealt with this in my original message. For the record, I'm one of the
people who doesn't believe this is the case without straining the reading
of those two points. I think the belief that the existing guidelines
clearly imply this is to some degree debian-legal group-think.

I don't mean that term as an insult. Group-think is inevitable and
unavoidable in any working group that regularly has the same discussions.
They've been applied for so long and the arguments have been stated and
restated for so long, mostly in the absence of anyone who feels
differently, that it would be surprising if regular debian-legal
contributors *didn't* feel this way. However, I don't think that makes it
true for the rest of the project who do not participate regularly in those
discussions.

Also, that doesn't make them bad guidelines necessarily. It does mean
that if we're going to apply them, they should be explicitly stated.

> - it makes the guidelines longer, so will make checking packages
> against the guidelines more tedious;

Checking packages is even more tedious when one has to apply rules present
only in unofficial FAQs.

> - it seems to be pandering to literalists in a similar way to the
> Editorial Changes GR and that hasn't really ended those arguments;

I disagree strongly with the latter part of that statement. Various
people are still *upset* about the Editorial Changes GR, but at least from
where I'm sitting, it did a lot to resolve the *argument*. In other
words, there are far fewer people now arguing that the project really does
intend to allow non-free documentation in main. There are more people
upset about the fact that the project doesn't want to do this, but that's
inevitable and more honest than the previous state.

> - I think that the second addition disallows things like pseudonyms,
> which I think we have accepted in the past.

Yes, wordsmithing is definitely needed on both.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Andreas Barth · External Since: Jul 31, 2005 Posts: 867

* Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) [070605 21:09]:
> So, how about we settle this once and for all? The DFSG is not an
> orthogonal basis for a vector space. The world won't end if we add a new
> point to it that some folks feel is redundant with what it already says.
> If there's a principle that we're generally applying for licenses, let's
> just add it to the DFSG so that it's present in clear and unambiguous
> language and everyone knows what the project's position as a whole is.

Agreed.

> For example, for the "desert island test" and part of the "dissident
> test", what about a GR with the following two ballot options:
>
> The DFSG are hereby amended to add the following additional guideline:
>
> 10. No Required Contribution of Changes
>
> The rights attached to the program must not depend on the user
> sending their modifications to any third party to whom they have
> not distributed the program.
>
> and:
>
> It is the position of the Debian Project that the DFSG does not
> prohibit a license from requiring local modifications be contributed
> back to the license holder or be made publicly available.
> Accordingly, software shall not be ineligible for the main archive
> solely due to such a license term.

I don't agree to either of that Smile

- I think though the license
shouldn't enforce people to *send* back the software, the license may
enforce that the changes are available (consider some websoftware that
has a license "if you use this software, you must make the software
available for download on your webpage, e.g. as a tar ball"). This works
even on a dessert island, btw Smile

(And, BTW, I consider such a change in the licenses to become more
important because of Web2.0 and renting software - even GPLed software
for Web2.0 doesn't give the users more rights then closed source
software, if they cannot get the local changes.)

Cheers,
Andi

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Marco d'Itri · External Since: Jan 21, 2005 Posts: 129

mjr RemoveThis @phonecoop.coop wrote:

>Maybe relocating, but not on VAC AFAICS and still active on various
This is not what I claimed.

>> Can't you come up with anything better than this?
>Why do I need to? Can you show that those DFSG-1-revisionists exist?
DFSG revisionists are the people holding one or more of these beliefs,
which were not usually accepted by developers when I joined the project:
- the DFSG 1.1 just clarifies the meaning of the DSFG 1.0 and does not
actually imposes new rules about what is acceptable in Debian
- the dissident test, the desert island test, the moose test, etc are
implied by the DFSG
- reasoning schemes like "even if everybody used to agree that the DFSG
had to be interpreted as X we now believe that it really meant Y != X"
- various other minor beliefs about what the DFSG means which were not
commonly accepted by developers some years ago, among them the "every
restriction is a fee" (possibly for multiple values of "every") which
you are defending here

Analysis of the debian-legal@ archive can show that there are such
people, therefore DFSG revisionists as previously defined exist.
QED. HTH.

(Hopefully even you will be able to understand that this description is
not rigorous in the mathematical sense, so please refrain from nitpick.)

>If not, stop trolling.
Accusing people who oppose your views of "trolling" shows lack of
dialectic skills.

--
ciao,
Marco

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 272

Russ Allbery <rra.TakeThisOut@debian.org> wrote:
> I dealt with this in my original message.

So don't let my disagreement provoke a repeat if that causes unhappiness.

> For the record, I'm one of the
> people who doesn't believe this is the case without straining the reading
> of those two points. I think the belief that the existing guidelines
> clearly imply this is to some degree debian-legal group-think.

debian group-think perhaps, as much of it predates debian-legal.

Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 272

Marco d'Itri <md DeleteThis @Linux.IT> wrote:
> mjr DeleteThis @phonecoop.coop wrote:
> >Maybe relocating, but not on VAC AFAICS and still active on various
> This is not what I claimed.

So if it didn't hinder your participation in debian, it's probably not
the reason you still have no examples of DFSG-1-revisionists.

> >> Can't you come up with anything better than this?
> >Why do I need to? Can you show that those DFSG-1-revisionists exist?
> DFSG revisionists are the people holding one or more of these beliefs,
> which were not usually accepted by developers when I joined the project:

You joined the project when? Before 1999, I think.

> - the DFSG 1.1 just clarifies the meaning of the DSFG 1.0 and does not
> actually imposes new rules about what is acceptable in Debian

DFSG 1.1 didn't exist until 2004, so clearly this view could not be
usually accepted by developers when you joined, so it's a bit of an
unreasonable standard to hold people to.

In any case, surely the revisionists are those who think 1.1 *revised*
the DFSG, rather than those who think the DFSG still mean the same?

> - the dissident test, the desert island test, the moose test, etc are
> implied by the DFSG
> - reasoning schemes like "even if everybody used to agree that the DFSG
> had to be interpreted as X we now believe that it really meant Y != X"

I'm not convinced there are many of those around.

> - various other minor beliefs about what the DFSG means which were not
> commonly accepted by developers some years ago, among them the "every
> restriction is a fee" (possibly for multiple values of "every") which
> you are defending here

I'm defending "non-money payments can be fees" which is a belief about
the DFSG which seems to have been commonly accepted by developers at
least since 1999.

> Analysis of the debian-legal@ archive can show that there are such
> people, therefore DFSG revisionists as previously defined exist.
> QED. HTH.
>
> (Hopefully even you will be able to understand that this description is
> not rigorous in the mathematical sense, so please refrain from nitpick.)

It's not only not rigorous, if it was written as maths, it would be:
unreasonable + unproven + unfounded + much hand-waving = conclusion.

> >If not, stop trolling.
> Accusing people who oppose your views of "trolling" shows lack of
> dialectic skills.

Just intolerance of people who try to prove by assertion.
Remember: In God We Trust - All Others Bring Data.

Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Marco d'Itri · External Since: Jan 21, 2005 Posts: 129

mjr.RemoveThis@phonecoop.coop wrote:

>So if it didn't hinder your participation in debian, it's probably not
I am not sure if you are accusing me of being a liar or you are just
being stupid. Anyway, thank you for reminding me why discussing with you
is a waste of time.

--
ciao,
Marco

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 272

Marco d'Itri <md DeleteThis @Linux.IT> wrote:
> mjr DeleteThis @phonecoop.coop wrote:
> >So if it didn't hinder your participation in debian, it's probably not
> I am not sure if you are accusing me of being a liar or you are just
> being stupid. Anyway, thank you for reminding me why discussing with you
> is a waste of time.

I'm not accusing anyone of lying (although I think you're mistaken
about who are "DFSG-revisionists"). Maybe I'm being stupid, but I
don't understand why relocating around New Year is relevant to having
no solid examples of the claimed revisionists by June next year.
Non-money fees are still fees and have been regarded as breaking the
DFSG since before debian-legal was created AFAICT.

Of course it's a waste of time to discuss if you have no evidence to
the contrary. Attempting proof by assertion is always a waste of time.
Like I posted months ago "How about the next person to make an
irrational claim without evidence does some research themselves?"

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Wouter Verhelst · External Since: Nov 08, 2004 Posts: 599

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:25:06AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Russ Allbery <rra RemoveThis @debian.org> wrote: [...]
> > The DFSG are hereby amended to add the following additional guideline:
> > 10. No Required Contribution of Changes [...]
> > 11. No Required Identity Disclosure [...]
>
> I think this is a bad idea because:
> - it is introducing redundancy into the guidelines - these are already
> covered by DFSGs 1 and 5;

Which is a problem, why?

Clarity never hurt anyone.

> - it makes the guidelines longer, so will make checking packages
> against the guidelines more tedious;

I don't think so; on the contrary, actually. These tests are used now
already anyway; formalizing them will just make things much clearer.

> - it seems to be pandering to literalists in a similar way to the
> Editorial Changes GR and that hasn't really ended those arguments;

Sorry, but that's not true. The EC GR did indeed not end those arguments
_immediately_, but they haven't been brought up anywhere I can see in a
while.

> - I think that the second addition disallows things like pseudonyms,
> which I think we have accepted in the past.

That could probably be fixed by some wording changes, I suppose.

--
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org