Re: Authority and procedures of debian-legal
Glenn L McGrath <email@example.com> wrote:
> I understand that the DFSG is a Guideline, those guidlines are
> open to interpretation, and debian legal is seen as the authoritive
> place to interperate the DFSG in new or changing conditions.
Your vision is impaired, then. I posted a reply to Gerv in the
thunderbird thread a few days ago explaining why debian-legal
isn't that. Why not lurk awhile before posting about non-package
> For debian-legal to abide by Debians Social Contract, i think someone
> should be attempting to "exhaustively list non-free restrictions".
How does that differ from a definition? That way madness (and
live rats) lies and other people are going mad already. Let's
not copy them.
Why not just deal with the grey areas when people stray into
them? When we can't agree, we'll argue for a few months and
probably eventually move one way or the other.