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

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <leader@debian.org> wrote:
> * MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> [2005-01-26 03:29]:
> > See also: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00521.html
> I've reviewed your arguments in the link above and see what you're
> saying; nevertheless, I can the summaries can be helpful, especially
> if your advise is taken into account.  Maybe you can work with the
> author of the /legal/licenses page to incorporate this feedback and
> add more concrete examples (from packages) to the license summaries
> (i.e. to show real world examples). [...]

I have given Frank Lichtenheld some comments in the past and
he's worked them into the pages. I am increasingly of the
opinion that those pages are broken conceptually, writing
cast-iron judgements once and forever and tending towards a
"Debian Free Software Licence Definition".  Despite how much
it sucks, licences are not a simple red/green choice and it's
probably reckless to suggest that they are.

I suggest:
 1. removing the licence summary list
 2. adding a page on the practicalities of working with debian-legal
 3. linking to where one can watch work in progress like
      and the draft FDL and CC responses
 4. listing debian delegates who affect licensing

> I think the problem is that the summaries were basically a subject
> line and a link.  This is really only helpful for people who are very
> keen on following -legal anyway.  For others, a summary in the style
> of Kernel Traffic
> (http://www.kernel-traffic.org/kernel-traffic/index.html) would be
> more appropriate; of course, such summaries are also more work.

There is the real danger of rewriting people's words and judging
opinions, which KT does more now than it used to. Of course, I'm
not surprised that a former Traffic author likes that format.

The "authors' picks" sections seemed to be the most popular
part of the last bfdl, and were also the least work. I can
see an argument for continuing just those and publishing the
compilation whenever it looks like there's enough.

In any case, I still think replacing the other biased summary
that we have at the minute is worthwhile. If others are willing
to try, then I'll do all I can to support it. I think Andrew
Saunders is also interested in continuing. Email both of us
at mjr-bfdl@debian.org

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks.

Reply to: