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

Re: Summaries in general, was: Summary Update: MPL ...



On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:23:40 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:

> Interesting reply,

TNX

> but it seems to have missed my main point.

Ouch, I apologize for this... ;p

> 
> On 2004-06-26 18:30:40 +0100 Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> 
> wrote:
> 
> > So, IIUC, you propose that summaries should be split into two
> > `variants'
> 
> This part is correct.
> 
> > in your opinion, every license should be summarized by one
> > document intended for the license authors (who may be willing to
> > improve their license) /and/ by another document intended for 
> > developers
> > (people who choose licenses for their software) and users (people
> > who choose software taking into account licensing issues).
> 
> No, I feel that if a licence author/user asks the list, the summariser
> writes a reply explaining any notable features of the licence in 
> question; while if a packager asks the list, the summariser writes a 
> reply explaining why a particular consensus was reached about the 
> package and that can be added to the web page, listing the licence 
> used and the consensus.

Ah, that is what you meant!
The summariser must implement a comand-line switch (--license or
--package) and generate a different type of output depending on how
he/she was invoked.   ;-)
HHOJ!  :)

Ok, seriously: I didn't understand what you actually propose.
Now, it's clear (even to me! ;-) and it sounds like a good proposal, if
summarisers can (and are willing to) get used to such a `double
system'...

[...]
> > It's not about becoming FSF++ or OSI mark 2.
> > But, hey!, what can you do when you realize you don't quite agree
> > with FSF's or OSI's criteria and you feel that Debian's criteria are
> > the ones
> > you agree best with?
> 
> Go set up your own licence court system using those criteria.

Well, those criteria are well known and understood by debian-legal
regulars.
I think that the only feasible way would be to exploit debian-legal
expertise.

Could you explain what do you feel would be wrong with a list of
licenses?
Do you think it would be misunderstood?

> 
> [...]
> > But it should publish some sort of vademecum, even though it must be
> 
> Vademecum is not a word dict or I know. It looks like a Roman place 
> name.

I'm sorry: I'm not a native English speaker.
I just took a Latin word that is used in Italian in the (apparently
wrong) belief that it was used in English, too...  :p

Actually, searching for that word in English dictionaries returns
nothing in most cases.
Though, *some* dictionaries do include it. An online example from:

http://wordreference.com/definition/vade+mecum.htm

vade mecum ['va:di'meikum]
noun  a handbook or other aid carried on the person for immediate use
when needed
[ETYMOLOGY: 17th Century: from Latin, literally: go with me]


What I meant was a sort of guide or reference that could help the reader
to find his/her way in the difficult world of licensing...

[...]
> Surely one could generate some lists of licences for the web site from
> existing packages, then reference debian-legal discussions?

This would probably do the job, at least partially.

> Or look at
> /usr/share/common-licenses on any Debian system for some obvious 
> candidates.

Well, these are the very minimum...  ;-)



-- 
             |  GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program
  Francesco  |        Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom!
     Poli    | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 |         -- from APT HOWTO,
             | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 |             version 1.8.0

Attachment: pgpbL45qQ1Fx2.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: