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.
I thought the point was to find technically competent people to
contribute to Debian.
> 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.
That's a poor answer because the applicant clearly doesn't understand
the issues involved. Debian of course cannot legally do that.
That said, I fully agree with that opinion. Dealing with licenses is
cumbersome, time consuming, and largely a waste of time. If it were up
to me, there would be no licenses and copyrights. Everything would just
be free. Does that mean I don't belong in Debian, simply because I have
little desire to scrutinize licenses?
--
You win again, gravity!
Reply to: