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

Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal

Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org> wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand this part, though.  Do you think that folks
> like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
> on d-l?  Do you think that those of us who are not DD's should put a
> disclaimer (IANADD) on every message to the list?  I can tell you from
> experience that the latter gets pretty distracting after a while.  This
> is a serious question, btw, because you're pointing to what you
> evidently consider to be a serious problem, yet you're not suggesting a
> solution.

Let's go back to Walter's original text:

"What is key for Debian is for clarifications to go into the license,
not the FAQ.  I am spectacularly unimpressed with the arguments I have
seen about estoppel etc.  It makes the license lawyerbait.  Just fix
the license."

Starting with "What is key for Debian" makes it sound like a policy 
statement on behalf of Debian, and "Just fix the license" could then be 
interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. In that 
context, it seems reasonable to point out that Walter is not in a 
position to speak on behalf of Debian.

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

Reply to: