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

Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?



On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:28:32 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> 
> > [dropping pkg-boinc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org as I don't think they care about this...]
> 
> [Yes, I agree.]
> [Please also avoid Cc:ing me, since I am subscribed to debian-legal...]

Noted... though, my mail client handles such things.

> [While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap value?  Long
> lines in your e-mail messages are unpractical to read on web archives
> and to reply to...]

The archive looks fine [1], and in my experience more mail clients prefer to wrap on their own than my client doing it for them. Yes, this is a particular problem with Outlook... and yes, that's what most of the recipients of my email use.

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg40546.html

> > On Saturday 02 January 2010 10:38:52 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> [...]
> > > I re-iterate: how can policy or practice be refined or discussed, if
> > > *any* disagreement is banned from Debian mailing lists?
> > > 
> > > Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the
> > > DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I
> > > provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such.
> > > I don't remember any clear decision by the Debian Project on this
> > > matter, otherwise I would have cited it (as I often do with the GR on
> > > the GFDL, for instance).
> > 
> > The problem with this line of argument is that it sounds very similar
> > to the climate skeptics / intelligent design crowd. The approach seems
> > to be, "continue to inject controversy even when there is community
> > consensus, in hopes of giving the appearance of true division."
> 
> I don't think this comparison is fair.
> IMHO, there's much more uncertainty in DFSG interpretation and license
> clause effect prediction, than in validation of scientific theories.
> 
> Also, my goal is not to "inject controversy".
> I just express my opinion, in the sincere hope that it can help in
> enhancing Debian.  When decision-makers disagree with me, I still hope
> I can persuade them to change their minds.  Whenever I am *aware* that
> my opinion is not in line with the official position of the Debian
> Project, I try to explicitly point this out.

I hear what you're saying, and I sympathize with your plight. Changing minds in Debian is a hurculean task. But the dude asking the question wasn't a Debian decision-maker, he was just some guy asking about the DFSG-ness of a license as applied to a particular piece of software. I my opinion, the mailing list should provide him as direct and politics-free answer as possible. At least, that's what I would want to receive if I had asked the question.

-Sean

-- 
Sean Kellogg
e: skellogg@probonogeek.org


Reply to: