Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:34:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:16:28 +0200 Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> I *used* to think that those disclaimers are implicit in most cases.
> But then, I was harshly accused of not making it clear enough that
> I am neither a lawyer, nor a Debian developer, that I'm not providing
> legal advice, and that I don't speak on behalf of the Debian Project.
> Other people were similarly attacked for the same reason.
> As a consequence I began adding the disclaimers to my messages, in
> order to explicitly remind readers about the above facts.
> Now, you say that those disclaimers are a waste of time...
> I'm really puzzled.
The real issue is not that you were posting without disclaimers. The real
issue is that you post to debian-legal with *content* that is inappropriate
*because* you are not a lawyer or a Debian developer.
When someone posts to debian-legal asking for help figuring out if a license
is ok for Debian main, and you respond saying that it isn't because of
license feature X; and you are well aware that the ftpmasters have
previously and consciously accepted other licenses into main with that same
feature, and have not been swayed by your arguments; that's not appropriate.
This list doesn't exist to serve as a soapbox for non-DDs to promote their
own interpretations of the DFSG, it's here to help maintainers (and
ftpmasters) figure out what packages Debian can distribute and in what
section of the archive.
When you repeatedly push interpretations of the DFSG that you *know* are
inconsistent with how the ftpmasters operate, that's an abuse of
debian-legal, regardless of how many disclaimers you stick on the end of it.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/