Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
- From: Russ Allbery <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:19:45 -0700
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <1237659617.13081.41.camel@tomoyo> (Josselin Mouette's message of "Sat\, 21 Mar 2009 19\:20\:17 +0100")
- References: <1237659617.13081.41.camel@tomoyo>
Josselin Mouette <email@example.com> writes:
> as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General
> 8< ----- 8< ----- 8< ----- 8< ----- 8< -----
> The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary
> packages shipped in the distribution are not required to contain an
> accurate and up-to-date listing of copyright holders.
Can you please let us finish having a conversation before you turn the
issue into a confrontational vote?
Many of us are already trying to work through what the requirements are
and understand from what the current policy stems, including both Manoj
and I who on first glance agree with you, and I have seen no sign as yet
that we can't reach a mutually agreeable conclusion. But people are
already freaking out about this, despite the fact that the conversation
has just started, and now you're proposing a GR when we have only had one
round of question and reply.
If we reach a clear, unbridgable point of disagreement where both sides
understand the motivating factors of the other side and still disagree,
then we can look at whether a GR is an appropriate resolution. But right
now, this is harmfully premature.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>