Re: DPL's view of debian-legal (was: Debian Trademarks Summary)
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> [...] but when either group purports to be stating official
> Debian policy, or starts attacking the people who do make such policy,
> that becomes actively harmful to the purpose of this list and the goals
> of the project.
But, despite writing that lists can't be assigned blame, here we go again!
The *group* attacks the policy-makers, does it? Where? *It's a mailing
list.* It doesn't get pissed off, it doesn't get happy, it doesn't get
sad, it doesn't laugh at your jokes... it just resends emails!
For the avoidance of doubt, -legal didn't attack aj for making not much
progress on the debian trademark as DPL, or for the SPI board he advised
failing to consider the trademark policies its trademark committee
drafted. I did, and I give my opinion only, as mentioned in almost every
sig and web site I post.
I think the Anthony Towns DPLship was not a fun time for those trying
to fix legal bugs and it should have been ended sooner. The most
significant progress seemed to be the delegation of trademark and
copyright instruction to Branden Robinson (which I linked in the summary),
but then those things seemed to return to DPL control again somehow.
Has the delegation ended or what?
Probably the simplest way forwards is to post the four policies drafted
so far, then choose between them, with any minor amendments. I'll check
whether I can make the fourth one public and then do that.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: