Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Monday 05 June 2006 16:50, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.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.
I do not believe that it is feasible/useful/possible to clarify every single
statement whether stated by an official DD ... It is addressee job to check
that out if they are interested in. If the addressee is not capable to check
official db.debian.org or to ask the sender to confirm that statement with
gpg signed message and to compare that against the official debian-keyring
then he (addresee) will ask for help.
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB