Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Josh Triplett writes:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Again, you're exaggerating this. Some license clauses are clearly,
>> unambiguously not free. Others are not. If we've seen several
>> variations along the same theme where there is a clear consensus that
>> such a thing is non-free, _that's_ when I'm saying we should mention
>> it. Maybe as an example of a common bad license clause, whatever.
>
>What about the ones that don't directly relate to a DFSG point, but are
>not "clearly, unambiguously not free" to everyone?
Then they clearly need more discussion and probably, eventually a vote
to get consensus. But if we can streamline some of the
discussion/argument here by updating the DFSG, that will help.
>> pass, or a simple majority of the small number of self-selecting
>> interested posters to debian-legal, many of whom are not DDs? That's
>> the point I've been trying to make for a long time here.
>
>I would tend to say a supermajority consensus on debian-legal, with the
>ability for the project as a whole to override such a decision with a
>GR, based on sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.2 of the Debian Constitution. I
>suspect that such an ability would rarely be used, considering that it
>would be easier to simply get the developers who would vote for such a
>GR to help you argue your case on debian-legal.
>
>Note also that debian-policy is basically self-selecting (albeit with a
>more formal process), and it seems to work fine.
>
>As for some debian-legal members not being developers :), that is an
>issue to consider as well. On the one hand, many contributors to
>debian-legal are not DDs. On the other hand, we don't really want
>single-shot opinion mails from people uninterested in rational
>discussion. I would tend to say that if it became necessary to adopt a
>formal process, then it would have to be limited to DDs, while if the
>process remained semi-informal like it is now, then all contributors
>would probably be included in the informal "do we have consensus" check.
I'm just not at all impressed by the the semi-informal "consensus"
check. But you probably guessed that already. :-) The problem I have
is that I've seen far too many summaries and consensus claims posted
here recently which have been clearly bogus.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"I suspect most samba developers are already technically insane... Of
course, since many of them are Australians, you can't tell." -- Linus Torvalds
Reply to: