It's late and I've travelled a lot in the last two days. I've
been not entirely productive IMO. To make matters worse, this note
is not properly researched, so may be annoyingly vague, or just
plain wrong.
I returned home to many hundreds of email, with the largest
contribution coming from the debian SC tidy-up GR fall-out. From
what I have read so far, some feel the new wording prevents their
own interpretation of DFSG as only applying to programs. They have
started playing with dictionaries and rule books and causing
trouble. Someone once mentioned being able to suffocate any group
with its own rule book (I warned you: not properly researched). It
seems likely to perpetuate the problem, because the emergence and
persistance of a minority interpretation was part of the motivation
for this GR, as I understand it.
What are they aiming to get? To show debian that the voters were
unrepresentative? Well, they could just try to revisit the vote
now. Maybe it's to drum up support for their view first? More
darkly, maybe it's to cripple debian, because we have this element
who don't agree with the majority view of the SC/DFSG and have been
able to become DDs without agreeing with it, thanks to elegant
games with dictionaries, or just by joining long enough ago.
I wonder where we go from here. The current RM has posted that
he can't see debian reaching a releaseable state any time soon.
Debian has had problems for a while with slow release cycle, as far
as users I talk to are concerned. Will delaying releases put people
off using GRs, or are releases already so far away that proposers
won't care?
Someone who has been working with debian for far too long said
to me that GRs are usually a mistake. Well, we're not doing well
recently, for sure. Are too many GRs "back me or smack me" types?
Is the process now too automatic and cookie-cutter?
A significant number of the minority are GNU FDL supporters (OK,
if that's not just totemic) or FDL-problem-deniers (hopefully not
many of those) or FDL-wait-and-sees (more of those). Ultimately,
FDL surely cannot be in debian. I'm surprised it's liked by GNU:
"We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing one bitstream
from another in order to figure out which rules apply." So says
Eben Moglen, FSF's general counsel, in Free
Software and the Death of Copyright. Amusingly, the article
opens by giving the meaning of the word "software" (although it
then quickly moves to the "software"="programs"
bitstream-distinguishing weakness).
I think you can add "unfocused" to "vague" and
"under-researched" about this note. Sleep well, if you're not
already. (By the way, this isn't an email because I don't care
about direct replies to points. If it makes you think, do
something. If I've really factually goofed, I'd love an email. If
you just think my opinion sucks, go find Branden's cup.)