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: