Re: Summary: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?, was Re: GPL+ for docs
Simon Law <sfllaw@debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more
>> to say on the subject:
>
> Hmm... I hate to seem authoritarian, but I'd like to see a little
> more formality in d-l summaries.
I think we should take it on a case-by-case basis. For many cases, I'm
afraid, this would simply end up taking up most of our time following
the forms of producing summaries. My judgement was that there is no
real controversy on this issue, so I went ahead and posted a simple
summary.
> What would be nice is a draft to go out a couple of days before the
> actual summary is published. This allows people who are busy to get
> their last words in.
For cases where there's controversy, I certainly agree. But if we want
to start doing this for every issue that comes to debian-legal we need
to make it very simple to do or we'll quickly get bogged down. IMHO,
this would mean we need a problem tracking infrastructure to handle it.
(I know of no reason the BTS couldn't be used for this -- for example,
with a dummy package ala WNPP. But not knowing the BTS all that well I
hesitate to say so for sure.)
> As well, it would be nice to quote the entire license and our exact
> concerns in the summary. This way, people looking through our
> archives in the future won't have to do more research tracking down
> lost texts.
That's a sensible idea. Not only does it make browsing the archive
simpler, but it also specifies clearly which license we're talking
about, when there are several versions. I'll do that in the future, but
unless folks really think it necessary, I won't bother for this case.
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: