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

Re: License discussions in Debian (was: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta)

On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:08:39PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> > See, given that as an ftpmaster I'm one of the folks who actually
> > implements the policy on what's accepted into main or not, it's not my
> > loss at all.
> I think that Debian would very much benefit if there was a place (call
> it debian-legal@l.d.o or whatever) where our policy with regard to
> individual software's licenes could be discussed with the input of those
> who actually set this policy: the ftpmasters.

Yes, that's the main reason for my involvement in this thread.

Though it's not just ftpmasters, it's Debian developers in general; so
that we don't end up with a consensus on debian-legal (or in ftpmaster)
that doesn't match the views of Debian as a whole.

AFAICS, that means welcoming developers who don't know the difference
between "subpoena" and "summons", not using it as a reason to ignore
them completely.

> If debian-legal isn't the place for you (and AFAIK none of the other
> ftpmasters is a regular), maybe we need a new start and a different
> format.  

I used to be a regular on -legal, and I'm still subscribed. My views
(such as "people who aren't speaking on behalf of the project shouldn't
make it sound like they are"...) don't seem particularly welcome though,
so I tend not to bother.

I don't see any particular reason to think a new start or format would
help much, but I'm open to suggestions.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: