Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

[Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:

>> Until that's done, there's no intrinsic reason for 
>> debian-legal's idea about the location of the line to be better than
>> anyone else's opinion.
>
>We've thought about it and discussed it; they haven't!  That is an intrinsic
>reason!

That's a shit reason. I've thought about it and discussed it. My line is
somewhere completely different to yours. By that argument, my opinion is
just as good as debian-legal's.

>Look, I'd be happy (if I was a DD already...) to propose GRs to settle some
>of these issues once and for all.  But I'm not, and people complain about
>*that* too.

If it's debian-legal's opinion that the DFSG does not embody the set of
freedoms we consider to be vital, then the right thing to do /is/ to
propose a GR to modify the DFSG. I'm entirely happy to do so, though not
necessarily to argue for it.

>Thanks for your informed discussion on why you disagree with some of these
>tests; you are the rare bird around here and contribute a lot to the
>discussions.

Thanks. It's nice to know I'm not viewed as a kook :)

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org