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

Re: FYI, kernel firmware non-freeness discussions

Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:06:44AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Indeed - I think discussion what what the DFSG /should/ mean (such as
>> whether source code is required for certain items) is a project wide
>> decision rather than a legal one.
> And the members of the project who have an interest in such matters
> are, by definition, the ones that subscribe to -legal. 

No, that's just plainly untrue.

(You can attempt to redefine it as "Only people subscribed to -legal are
interested in how the DFSG should be applied", but that just means that
your definition of "interested in how the DFSG should be applied" is

> No matter how much you try to set them up in opposition to each other,
> the Debian mailing lists are divided by *topic*, nothing more. Matters
> relating to the DFSG are quite clearly on-topic for -legal, rather
> than one of the catch-all lists.

That's odd. The description of -legal is "Copyright, licensing and
patent issues", whereas -project is "Discussions about non-technical
issues in the project". Deciding whether the DFSG should apply to a
particular catagory of bitstreams is clearly not a matter of copyright,
licensing or patents. It /is/, however, a non-technical issue that
applies to the project.

Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org

Reply to: