On 08-Jul-2005, Arnt Karlsen wrote: [Arnt, if you're going to write in English, please make yourself easier to understand by following English usage. Paragraphs don't start with leading period characters, and most sentences start with a capital letter.] > On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:11:55 -0500, Manoj wrote > > I am not sure I can follow what the object of this report is, and > > I certainly do not see why a serious priority is justified. What > > exactly is the potential for litigation here in policy? > > ..does "SCO vs IBM" ring a bell? http://groklaw.net/ How does this apply to current Debian policy? > > From what I can gather, the objection in some sense seems to be on > > the word "agreement". > > ..correct, adding " agreement" to "license" yields "license agreement", > which is legalese for contract. How is this relevant? > > the policy document does not include the word agreement, > > ..precisely, and precisely why Don summarily closed #317365: So, how is this a bug in Policy? How is this even relevant to Debian policy? > ..he and the KDE project _is_ however in conflict with both his own, > KDEP's, F/OSS etc and Debian's interests AFAIK them, when he > advances Microsoft's argument and interests like above here. I can't see how you're connecting Debian policy and "Microsoft's argument", nor how it's relevant. > > so surely whatever the problem is, if any, it does not warrant a > > serious bug on policy. > > ..here I disagree, we (F/OSS|Debian) open ourselves as a long term > litigation targets, unwarrantedly, by letting Microsoft lobby in this > confusing language into Debian packages, and by _not_ mentioning the > Debian position or policy in the DPM on whether or not the GPL etc are > licenses or contracts. As explained, there *is* no position or policy on this matter. It's up to local law; Debian policy can't affect it. > ..here I believe we agree the DPM should at the very least point to > a resource and suggest a minimum standard. ;o) Standard for what? I don't see what Debian policy could say that would be more informative than "seek legal advice in your own jurisdiction". Generic, non-Debian-specific advice doesn't really belong in Debian's official policy document, and it's far from a bug on the policy for it not to be there. -- \ "First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing, for verbing | `\ weirds language. Then, they arrival for the nouns and I speech | _o__) nothing, for I no verbs." -- Peter Ellis | Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature