Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
Scripsit Ricardo Gladwell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 21:47 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> Plus the Debian project as a whole. We already had that GR. You lost,
>> Oh, and that whole creative commons mob. Yeah. Real few people.
> Wow. That seemed unnecessarily hostile. I'm not really sure what you
> think I "lost"
You may not be aware that there's a rather vocal minority within
Debian that asserts that the debian-legal interpretation of software
freedom does not correspond to the views of the project in general,
which (so the minority claims) would prefer a more tolerant stance
towards license restrictions, lack of real source code, etc.
When you said that "only debian-legal really seems to take such a
stance", Andrew apparently thought you meant that in contrast to other
parts of Debian rather than in contrast to parts of the free software
movement outside Debian. That would apparently put you in the
aforementioned minority group, which we<tm> do not have much patience
with after several years of flamewars and two project-wide referenda
on the matter.
I prefer the more charitable interpretation that you want
debian-legal's advice because you think you'll agree more with our
viewpoints than with other possible suppliers of license advice.
Henning Makholm "We can hope that this serious deficiency will be
remedied in the final version of BibTeX, 1.0, which is
expected to appear when the LaTeX 3.0 development is completed."