On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:00:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > 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, How times have changed! > so I went ahead and posted a simple summary. It's a good start and I don't want to downplay its importance. I simply agree with Simon that we should go a little farther. > 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.) Here's another potential application for RT (see debian-vote if you like; otherwise ignore this comment :) ). > > 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. The OPL is an important license, in part because it motivated the FSF to produce the GNU FDL, and I think it's worthy of a formal summary. -- G. Branden Robinson | Any man who does not realize that Debian GNU/Linux | he is half an animal is only half a branden@debian.org | man. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Thornton Wilder
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature