Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry writes: > > > >In general, I find this complaining about debian-legal to be > >misplaced. It is as if people started complaining that the french > >localization list came up with a french style guide without > >"consulting" anyone (oh, and they use this strange terminology called > >"French" to discuss things). If you are interested in french style > >guides, then that is the obvious place to go. Similarly, if you are > >interested in legal issues, then you go to debian-legal. > > Hmmm. That's a bogus example. The French localisation list would not > generally claim that they were making decisions that would affect the > entirety of Debian, whereas licensing decisions _definitely_ > do.
You must have missed this flamewar http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/05/msg00764.html It certainly looks like a style guide can affect every package. > debian-legal also tends to be full of pedantic arguments about precise > meanings of words and clauses (inevitable due to the legalese > involved, I suppose) which makes the discussions here very difficult > to join without a very large amount of context/archive > reading/whatever. Here you're complaining that legal analysis is hard... > Add in posturing and bogus summaries and claims of consensus, and > it's easy to see why lots of DDs don't even bother trying to take > part any more. and here you're complaining about behavior found in almost every debian list. I'm not sure that there is anything that can be done about those things. > For -legal discussions to gain general backing and support, we need > to make the much more accessible. Updates to the DFSG are one thing > I'd like to see to streamline some of the discussion; I'm not too keen on having to modify the DFSG everytime someone comes up with a novel way of restricting freedom. I'm more inclined to not accept new restrictions unless they are substantially similar to restrictions already in wide usage for software in main. > maybe an _objective_ weekly/monthly summary of discussions would > help too. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
