Re: License question about regexplorer
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> The fact that it's not debian-legal's job in the first place? Seriously,
> if you can find references that provide constitutional delegation of
> these decisions to -legal, I'll be somewhat more happy about it all.
I agree with the first three lines: debian-legal is an advisory
group, although currently endorsed by debian policy. It is
not a delegate and has no decision-making power. The last
DPL discussed making delegates, I think, but didn't.
If we want to get a decision, we have persuade someone who
does have decision-making power for the decision we want, by
discussion, position statement or otherwise. Most cases (not
QPL!) and bugfixes are so obvious that it's a pretty easy chat.
Unfortunately, some that aren't spin out long threads.
> Otherwise, -legal's opinions count no more than any other random set of
> people. They're generally useful, but they don't determine policy in
> themselves.
I don't agree with the first sentence of that. -legal seem to
have above-average experience with licensing for a random group
of hackers, and most seem more liberal and pragmatic than many
debian developers. The opinions are usually well-supported.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: