Re: Perl module licensing, the next step
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:
Steve> On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 06:39:13PM -0600, Ardo van
Steve> Rangelrooij wrote:
>> Glenn Maynard (g_deb@zewt.org) wrote:
>> > On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 04:25:26PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
>> > > I've been contacted by Ann Barcomb (see her message below;
>> below that is her > > second message to me) about the Perl
>> module license issue. I've put her on > > the Cc and would
>> appreciate it if you could keep her on the list of recepients.
>> > >
>> > > So, what information do we feed back to the Perl community
>> in order for them > > to "fix" their licenses.
>> > Well, there's arguments on both sides, but doesn't yet seem
>> to be a consensus > on whether this is a real problem or not.
>> Clarifying it probably can't > hurt, though.
>> It's also my impression there's no consensus, but what is the
>> deciding enity in Debian on this matter: ftp-masters, the
>> technical committee, ...?
Steve> The ftp-masters have veto power over packages entering the
Steve> archive, be it for technical or legal reasons. You might
Steve> be able to appeal to the technical committee, but I doubt
Steve> they would consider the matter without some kind of
Steve> consensus on debian-legal that the ftp-masters are wrong.
You can always introduce a GR.
I'm not even convinced it would be wrong in this case as there seems
to be a complete lack of consensus. If you have an option that avoids
introducing a GR yand is acceptable to you, please pick that option.
We do not want to get into the habbit of dealing with small details
through GRs except when other options fail us.
But the GR mechanism is explicitly there as a way to appeal the
decisions of other parts of the project or to make decisions when no
clear authority exists.
Reply to: