MJ Ray wrote:
Also, can the DPL really not just issue this position statement as a "decision for whom noone else has responsibility"? I'm pretty sure the DPL procedure (such as it is) was followed: that zack solicited views and made a decision he felt to be consistent with the consensus.
Members are responsible for issuing position statements (4.1, 5.):
Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements.
Personally, I'm uncomfortable with point 5, but I think I'm living in a country where legislation prohibits software patents and there isn't a specific increase in punishment if you might have read emails form a third party about a possible patent infringement (but I could be wrong). I think the request to focus patent topics on one contact point is to protect less fortunate developers: there are some, aren't there? In the USA with its crazy anti-free-enterprise software patent madness?
To be clear, I didn't mean to say that point 5 doesn't have any interest for Debian. I agree it may help defend against accusations of patent infringement.