On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:53:29 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Bill Allombert <ballombe@master.debian.org> wrote:
>
> > I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and
> > discussion and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to
> > read debian-legal.
>
> People are heavily discouraged from reading debian-legal because it's
> full of huge amounts of masturbation.
Please try and avoid non-costructive criticism.
It's true that debian-legal often experiences what can be seen as
"noise" or "interesting discussions", depending on your point of view,
mood, and temperature... but calling it "masturbation" is a bit rude,
isn't it?
> It's not -legal's job to define
> the standards by which Debian determines freedom - it's legal's job to
> determine whether a specific license meets those.
And this is what was done last summer with the QPL: it was determined
that that specific license does *not* meet Debian freedom standards.
>
> > I will probably not able to attend debconf 5, but even if I were,
> > I would not be able to usefully participate to a DFSG session,
> > because nobody understand me when I speak English and I understand
> > half what others say. So one way or another, you will not have my
> > input that way.
>
> That's unfortunate. However, holding the discussion on -legal
> guarantees that we won't have the input of many developers.
They may provide their input whenever they want to, but we cannot force
them to do so.
If they don't, maybe they do not care enough or they don't feel
competent enough: so they delegate to debian-legal partecipants...
What's wrong with that?
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpUtiwEXL48F.pgp
Description: PGP signature