Re: FYI, kernel firmware non-freeness discussions
> Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I have no idea why -legal isn't in the loop, but I figured if I gave y'all
> > heads up, you would be soon enough.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Because it's -legal's job to interpret licenses, not the DFSG?
The -legal regulars are very likely to be interested in this issue. The
ftpmasters effectively delegate interpretation as to what is "free enough for
main" to -legal much of the time, perhaps since it usually is tied up with
license interpretation. So many -legal regulars have been involved in
interpreting the DFSG and the Social Contract. Indeed, some were involved in
the drafting of the most recent version of the Social Contract.
Accordingly, -legal regulars are very likely to have productive and helpful
comments on the issue, and also to have strong opinions.
Accordingly, I thought that it was a good idea to *notify* -legal of the
discussion taking place on -project and elsewhere, since I suspect that not
all of the -legal regulars follow those lists. I don't really have any
objection to the discussion taking place on -project or elsewhere; I just
thought -legal should be given a heads-up. I noticed only because I follow
I'm sure you agree that this is reasonable.