On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:13:16PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> > > > [...] If people have > > > weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to, > > > that's entirely their choice. > > Yes, that package maintainer may choose to ignore all of policy. It's > > entirely my choice how to respond to that. Everyone happy with that? > Yes, but policy is generally sensible, edited by DDs, and each change is > carefully vetted. > debian-legal, OTOH, claims that not only is the stock MIT/X11 licence > 'non-free', but 'it is impractical to work with such software'. Though I agree there's no requirement to consult debian-legal on every license, ascribing this particular view to debian-legal as a whole is about as productive as saying that all Debian bug submitters want us to emulate GoboLinux, or that having to wait for the clock before being able to read non-garbage output from a pin means all digital circuits are useless... -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature