Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
- From: MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 03 Apr 2005 00:11:19 GMT
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050326222757.GC2656@nozomi> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <424B42B5.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <424EB33C.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> wrote:
> email@example.com wrote:
> >> I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ
> >> (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right?
> >yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page.
> >Should I not consider that faq?
> You should consider it as the opinion of a debian-legal contributor, and
> in no way representative of the official position of Debian.
You understate it again. It includes the opinions of at least
twelve contributors, although only one of them has definitely
agreed to include them all. It is the most popularly cited FAQ
about the DFSG. That is easy to see.
Marco d'Itri doesn't like it and chip-chip-chips away at it
by pointing out it's not been pushed through a GR. IIRC,
Marco d'Itri has criticised policy statement GRs. On the
other, things are attacked for not having been passed by GR.
What a contradiction! Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Read the FAQ but realise that not everyone agrees fully and
some criticise destructively rather than constructively.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct