Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Josh Triplett writes:
> >>With that in mind, what if we just amended the DFSG to include a
> >>statement at the top explicitly acknowledging the "Guidelines"
> >>interpretation, and pointing out that the DFSG is not an exhaustive list
> >>of allowable license clauses? That way, it is clearer that the DFSG
> >>cannot be used as a checklist, and that general-consensus
> >>interpretations about a license are valid.
> >
>
> > pass, or a simple majority of the small number of self-selecting
> > interested posters to debian-legal, many of whom are not DDs? That's
> > the point I've been trying to make for a long time here.
>
> I would tend to say a supermajority consensus on debian-legal, with the
> ability for the project as a whole to override such a decision with a
> GR, based on sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.2 of the Debian Constitution. I
> suspect that such an ability would rarely be used, considering that it
> would be easier to simply get the developers who would vote for such a
> GR to help you argue your case on debian-legal.
Debian-legal is a mailing list. That is it. The people with real
power (ftp-master, RM, etc.) can decide to ignore debian-legal or not.
I understand that ftp-master generally goes by debian-legal consensus,
but they don't have to. The former RM (Anthony Towns) recently did
not (and caused quite an uproar because of it).
> Note also that debian-policy is basically self-selecting (albeit with a
> more formal process), and it seems to work fine.
>
> As for some debian-legal members not being developers :), that is an
> issue to consider as well. On the one hand, many contributors to
> debian-legal are not DDs. On the other hand, we don't really want
> single-shot opinion mails from people uninterested in rational
> discussion. I would tend to say that if it became necessary to adopt a
> formal process, then it would have to be limited to DDs, while if the
> process remained semi-informal like it is now, then all contributors
> would probably be included in the informal "do we have consensus" check.
It would be interesting to see how many of these "single-shot opinion
mails from people uninterested in rational discussion" come from DD's
and how many come from third parties. In the three years I've been
posting here, I've certainly seen plenty from both camps.
In general, I find this complaining about debian-legal to be
misplaced. It is as if people started complaining that the french
localization list came up with a french style guide without
"consulting" anyone (oh, and they use this strange terminology called
"French" to discuss things). If you are interested in french style
guides, then that is the obvious place to go. Similarly, if you are
interested in legal issues, then you go to debian-legal.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: