Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please try and avoid non-costructive criticism. > It's true that debian-legal often experiences what can be seen as > "noise" or "interesting discussions", depending on your point of view, > mood, and temperature... but calling it "masturbation" is a bit rude, > isn't it?
Absolutely. >> It's not -legal's job to define >> the standards by which Debian determines freedom - it's legal's job to >> determine whether a specific license meets those. > > And this is what was done last summer with the QPL: it was determined > that that specific license does *not* meet Debian freedom standards. No. No, it wasn't. The QPL was primarily determined to be non-free by a specific interpretation of the word "fee" (there's all sorts of other little issues, but basically nobody outside -legal cares about them). Nothing within Debian's social contract makes it clear that that's the intended interpretation, and as a result it's really up to the wider project to work out what that means. >> That's unfortunate. However, holding the discussion on -legal >> guarantees that we won't have the input of many developers. > > They may provide their input whenever they want to, but we cannot force > them to do so. > If they don't, maybe they do not care enough or they don't feel > competent enough: so they delegate to debian-legal partecipants... > > What's wrong with that? The fact that it's not debian-legal's job in the first place? Seriously, if you can find references that provide constitutional delegation of these decisions to -legal, I'll be somewhat more happy about it all. Otherwise, -legal's opinions count no more than any other random set of people. They're generally useful, but they don't determine policy in themselves. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
