[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is a different opinion about a license a case for the ctte?

[I  accidentally sent this as a private reply earlier this morning
 before Phil's message.]
 TL;DR: you don't have any recourse that is appropriate for this
 All the hammers are bigger than your nail.

 >>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> writes:

     Andreas> Hi folks, before I follow the advise how to refer a
     Andreas> question to the CTTE[1] I'm wondering whether licensing
     Andreas> questions are also a topic here.  I admit I'm a bit unsure
     Andreas> whether this minor issue about a license is really worth
     Andreas> that even more people spent time into it.  I'm demotivated
     Andreas> myself by no progress in something I would consider
     Andreas> nitpicking about a non-issue.  But I would like to use this
     Andreas> as a general example to know whether CTTE could be of help
     Andreas> in licensing questions.

 The secretary ruled that the CT cannover overrule a delegate acting in
 their delegated responsibility,
 so no the CT cannot overrule ftpmaster.

 The CT could give advice to ftpmaster, especially if ftpmaster requested
 that advice.
 I'd expect the CT would be reluctant to give non-technical advice.

 The CT could set *technical policy* and I'd expect delegates would
 generally be expected to follow reasonable technical policy established
 by the CT or be accountable to the DPL and membership at large.
 However, I don't really think that license standards are technical
 enough to be technical policy.

 ftpmaster could establish an appeals procedure.

 The DPL could establish another set of delegates for setting license
 policy and separate that out from the ftpmaster delegation.
 I.E. someone sets license policy, and ftpmaster interprets it.
 That said, some questions could not be separated.
 In particular, because of liability concerns, if ftpmaster believes
 something is not redistributable, it would be highly inappropriate to
 ask them to redistribute it in the current Debian liability model.

 Any of this could be handled by a GR.

Reply to: