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

Re: License question about regexplorer

On 27 May 2005 09:31:37 GMT MJ Ray wrote:

> 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.

That's right, I apologize for using misleading words (being an English
native speaker would have helped here, but I'm not!).

When I said "they delegate to debian-legal partecipants" I didn't mean
that they delegate the decision-making (that is to say "this package
belongs in main, that other one belongs in non-free, and so forth"):
that is indeed up to the ftpmasters to decide.
What I meant was that they delegate the /legal analysis and discussion/;
they delegate the /advisory role/.

    :-(   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: pgp6AGRD04Yvw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: