Re: Is this license DFSG free?
Sean Kellogg <email@example.com> wrote:
> Well now, this strikes me as a problem.... from a political science=20
> perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a self-appointed group of=
You have written self-appointed. That is incorrect. debian-legal
is not a delegated or appointed post. Self-selected, perhaps?
> various legal, political, an philosophical stripes, is making substantive=20
> policy decisions based on thin air? [...] U.S. Courts, love of 'em or ha=
> 'em, base everything they do two sources: 1) previous decisions, 2) decisio=
> made by elected officials or their appointees. Debian-legal seems to have=
> adopted #1, but failing #2 it chooses instead to insert its own opinion. =20
> Which brings us back to the self-selected nature of the group.
Debian-legal is closer to an advisory board than a court. If you compare
it to a court, you are going to find very large differences, but that
> I don't want to be the wacko who just goes off on a long standing system th=
> all things considered, seem to be working pretty well... but I also know=20
> that our the new DPL has made it pretty clear that he wants Debian=20
> institutions to be looked at to make sure they are actually doing the=20
> Project's work. Perhaps this is the time to seriously consider how=20
> debian-legal functions and on what sort of basis it makes decisions.
debian-legal makes no decisions itself. I think you should
research a little more about how debian-legal works and where
it fits into debian policy before making misleading comparisons
and calls "to seriously consider" things. I don't think it's
particularly well-documented, but it ought to be, at least to
dispel some of the sustained FUDders. The previously-linked
FAQ and personal sites of some contributors can give an insight
beyond the official docs.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct