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

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:31:34PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> This smacks of arrogance. Most -legal participants aren't lawyers, and as
> such have no formal training in actual legal matters. Believe it or not,
> such training does count for something. The point should be to cooperate
> with these people and have actual discussions, not beat them about the
> head and shoulders with ideology that they probably don't understand.
> This is the sort of thing that Matthew is reporting about, and it's also
> the reason for the recent backlash against -legal from within Debian
> itself.

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 09:41:27PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:31:34 -0400, David Nusinow
> <david_nusinow@verizon.net> wrote:
> You said that better than I would have, if I had fallen to my
> temptation to reply to Thaddeus.  I agree 100%, and with perhaps more
> emotion.
> I do have a question....  on an individual package-by-package basis,
> who does have final say as to whether or not it follows the DFSG?  The
> developer who packages it?  The Release Manager?  Upstream?

On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 07:44:38PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:31:34PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> Well put. I couldn't agree more.

Well, while you're all vigorously agreeing with each other, it would be
nice if you guys would cite actual examples of debian-legal people "beating
upstreams about the head and shoulders with ideology".

As a subscriber to -legal for years now, my experience is quite different.
On many occasions, upstream licensors have thanked us for working with them
to come up with a better license.  There are even *recent* examples[1][2]
of this.

The most frequent and bitter acrimony on (and about) -legal seems to come
not from upstream developers, but from Debian package maintainers who can't
articulate why a license is DFSG-free beyond "because I said so!".  In many
cases, this comes not from the maintainer of a package whose license is
being studied, but from some third party Debian developer who seems enraged
that questions are even being asked.[3]

[1] "Special thanks to all those people from Debian Legal who worked
     constructively with us on this onerous task [...]"

[2] "Thank you for your help, Remco."
    Message-Id: <20040704220714.5df7f12c.raseesink@hotpop.com>

[3] http://blog.bofh.it/id_42

G. Branden Robinson                |      The National Security Agency is
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      working on the Fourth Amendment
branden@debian.org                 |      thing.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |      -- Phil Lago, Deputy XD, CIA

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: