Re: removing the debian-legal website stuff?
Joerg Jaspert <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 10301 March 1977, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Joerg, if you want to make your life easier, try opening bugs
> > about any NEW licence questions and cc -legal,
> Bugs? Where? Package: general? Or does -legal now have an on bts entry?
> Stuff in NEW usually doesnt have a place for bugs [...]
Maybe open was the wrong word for that situation. The
Developers' Reference suggests there will be an open wnpp bug
for a fully NEW package. Why not add to the end of that and cc?
> My *personal* experience with this list is just not so that I see a big
> value posting to it. (Im mostly a reader on -legal)
When hunting for an ftpmaster post, I found a surprising number
of licensing problems that get advice, help and/or resolutions
in between the few long "thread tennis" games. I think a more
active interest from the NEW queue handlers would improve things
even further, giving even more practical, useful work.
I found one thread started by you on debian-legal ever,
"Bug#244289: xball: Package includes non-free source code."
You were essentially right, as far as I can tell, so there was
no "other opinion" offered. The bug was resolved when the
maintainer was convinced too.
Other than that, I noticed two posts giving information,
although one seemed a bit flamey to me. Why not get a
little more experience before generalising?
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/