Re: debian-legal review of licenses
Scripsit Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <leader@debian.org>
> People _want_ OSI to certify their licenses, but Debian/DFSG currently
> is not as important in this regard as OSI. Most people won't come to
> us to make sure a license is DFSG compliant as long as it is OSI
> compliant. Hence, I think we should approach them to point out these
> differences (not to demand anything, just explain our point of view).
Hm, that would involve somebody monitoring the OSI lists, because an
unsolicited approach to the licensor *after* the OSI process has
finished cannot help but be interpreted as rude.
Yes, then there might be a point in appointing one or two official
Debian Ambassador To The OSI; if only because the appointed ambassador
could then chalk up the time he uses reading OSI lists as "Debian
time".
The question is then who to appoint. Many qualified members of the d-l
cabal (e.g. Brian Sniffen, Anthony DeRobertis, Walter Landry, Don
Armstrong, Nathanael Nerode, not to mention yours truly) are not
registered Developers, and would thus be strange choices indeed as
"ambassadors".
On the theory that a truly qualified individual will be too modest to
nominate himslef, I'll start the ball: FWIW, my immediate [1] list of
known DDs whom I would personally trust to judge correctly whether to
bring something to d-l's attention for further discussion include
Branden Robinson, Andrew Suffield and Steve Langasek.
Of course there is no guarantee that either of those want the job.
Branden, for example, almost certainly has enough work on his hands
already.
[1] I.e., I've probably forgot someone. If you think you have been
left out, don't take it personally. Assume that I mistyped your
name when I looked in the developer database to see if you're in
it.
--
Henning Makholm "Hør, hvad er det egentlig
der ikke kan blive ved med at gå?"
Reply to: