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

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository



On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 00:13:06 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:

[...]
> 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.

When I am aware that the ftpmasters disagree with my own personal
opinion, I try to explicitly acknowledge it.
See, for instance:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/03/msg00089.html

I am not a spokesperson of the ftpmasters: I think I am allowed to
contribute to this list with my own personal opinion, as long as it's
clear that I am not claiming that my opinion is the official Debian
position or ftpmasters' one.

> 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.

The description of this list states:
"Discussions about legality issues such as copyrights, patents etc."

If *only one* opinion (namely ftpmasters' one) is allowed, I cannot see
what kind of 'discussions' can be held...

Moreover, if the list is here to also "help [...] ftpmasters [...]
figure out what packages Debian can distribute and in what section of
the archive", as you yourself state, then I cannot understand how this
could be achieved by only reporting ftpmasters' opinions...  Do we have
to remind ftpmasters their own opinions?!?

> 
> 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.

Frankly speaking, you seem to consider debian-legal as an address
for ftpmasters' spokespersons.
If you really believe debian-legal should only report ftpmasters'
opinions, then you should propose that debian-legal@l.d.o becomes
an alias for ftpmaster@d.o ...
At that point, nothing but ftpmasters' opinions would be given.
I don't know how many answers would be given for
the raised questions, though: ftpmasters don't seem to be much willing
to explain their decisions.  For instance, I explicitly asked for
an explanation of the acceptance of CC-by-v3.0 in bug #431794,
but ftpmasters' answer has been a deafening silence, so far...  :-(


-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs
 The nano-document series is here!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpsqqUHMAEEn.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: