Re: The bigger issue is badly licensed blobs (was Re: Firmware poll
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
> >> minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
> >> right now, because it determines whether Debian will distribute these 53
> >> BLOBs *at all*, in 'main' or in 'non-free'.
> >> Oddly enough nobody has proposed a GR addressing this,
> > Because voting is an absurd means of settling questions of legal
> > liability. It's the domain of the ftp team to determine whether we can
> > legally distribute a package on our mirrors.
> Actually, letting an overworked team of four with (to my knowledge) zero
> legal expertise settle questions of legal liability is pretty absurd too.
They are the team responsible for vetting the legality of what's distributed
on the mirrors. None of them have any legal expertise to my knowledge; but
they do know where the lawyers are if they have questions, and they *are*
the ones in the hot seat(s).
> Should the ftpmasters, who have even less legal expertise,
Judging by some of the nonsense that debian-legal is typically riddled with,
if I were an ftpmaster I would find that claim insulting.
The only claim to expertise that debian-legal has is in the area of
analyzing license terms and how they stack up against the requirements of
the DFSG. That is an important function, but it is *not* legal expertise.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: