Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Glenn Maynard writes:
>On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:37:18AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> An example: several people here seem to believe that specifying a
>> legal venue in a license is non-free. Take that to a vote as a DFSG
>> amendment. If the vote is carried, then we have agreement amongst
>> DDs. If not, we clearly as a project consider it free. Either way, we
>> can stop the fruitless debate that's been pinging backwards and
>> forwards for months if not years. This is a common bugbear in many
>> licenses that is'nt going to go away any time soon...
>
>It doesn't seem to be going back and forth; I don't recall any real
>question of it until very recently, and there only seems to be a very
>few people arguing against it. I don't like the precedent set by a
>couple people disagreeing with a consensus forcing d-legal to a GR.
<sigh> You're completely missing the point - I'm _not_ saying that the
disagreement should cause the GR. If we have a licensing issue that
needs deciding clearly, we need to involve the rest of the DDs in
making that decision. All the handwaving in the world on -legal won't
change that.
>My opinion might change if there was an indication that this was a
>widespread and unreconcilable disagreement: if we can't come to a
>solid consensus on a real issue, then something else needs to be done.
>However, simple disagreement and discussion doesn't indicate that;
>discussion very often leads to agreement. (In practice, it's very
>rare for d-legal to not be able to reach a reasonable consensus on
>a real issue.)
*rotfl* Good joke. I suppose it depends on what you mean by
"consensus".
>In any event, there's still productive discussion taking place on this
>issue, which means it's certainly too early to consider trying to set
>anything in stone (ignoring the fact that no changes to the DFSG are
>likely to stand any chance before the release, after GR 2004-004).
I haven't seen anything at all productive about the discussion for the
last several weeks. Nobody with either opinion has changed that
opinion due to the discussion - there has been no progress made.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Getting a SCSI chain working is perfectly simple if you remember that there
must be exactly three terminations: one on one end of the cable, one on the
far end, and the goat, terminated over the SCSI chain with a silver-handled
knife whilst burning *black* candles. --- Anthony DeBoer
Reply to: