Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:18:56PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:06:39AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> There's a difference between a vague preference, and an opinion that
> we should actually do it. Note that this one also implies the DFSG
> should be scrapped.
OK, but the applicant also has to agree to abide by the SC as part of
the NM process. As long as the applicant agrees to the SC and
understands the (difficult) process to change the SC or DFSG, I don't
see why we should discriminate against any particular opinion.
--
You win again, gravity!
Reply to: