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. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature