Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:06:44AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> Indeed - I think discussion what what the DFSG /should/ mean (such as >> whether source code is required for certain items) is a project wide >> decision rather than a legal one. > > And the members of the project who have an interest in such matters > are, by definition, the ones that subscribe to -legal.
No, that's just plainly untrue. (You can attempt to redefine it as "Only people subscribed to -legal are interested in how the DFSG should be applied", but that just means that your definition of "interested in how the DFSG should be applied" is uninteresting) > No matter how much you try to set them up in opposition to each other, > the Debian mailing lists are divided by *topic*, nothing more. Matters > relating to the DFSG are quite clearly on-topic for -legal, rather > than one of the catch-all lists. That's odd. The description of -legal is "Copyright, licensing and patent issues", whereas -project is "Discussions about non-technical issues in the project". Deciding whether the DFSG should apply to a particular catagory of bitstreams is clearly not a matter of copyright, licensing or patents. It /is/, however, a non-technical issue that applies to the project. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]