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

Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue



On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what 
> > > answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of 
> > > some DDs. Anyway, we probably need some questions about the more 
> > > interesting things like patent termination clauses or 
> > > copyright-enforced trademarks (debian logo?), as they are pretty 
> > > common problems. I'll have to let some of the gurus give good examples 
> > > to start, but I'll help if I can.
> > 
> > I find it appalling that believe you think that some answers to 5a and 6
> > should not be accepted.  Do you think Debian is some elite club where
> > only certain opinions should be accepted?
> 
> Yes. That's the whole point of the NM process. If this were not true
> then it would be unnecessary. The following is an example of an
> unacceptable opinion for a Debian applicant:
> 
> > 5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily discussed
> >     on debian-legal recently. Read
> >     http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and
> >     briefly explain how you feel about the including documents
> >     licensed under the FDL in main and what consequences of this
> >     position might be for Debian.
> 
> Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main.

Sure, just move the main archive out of licence encoumbered country, and that
would be all right. :)

Friendly,

Sven Luther



Reply to: