[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Your messages suggested that you'd review "after a few months" > > mainly to see who is summarising, so now seems like a good > > opportunity. Do you have other comments about whether this turned > > out like you imagined? > > Sorry for the delay in responding. I think the situation has improved > but that -legal could do a better job at communicating their ideas to > people who don't have time to follow the list. For example, I don't > think that many people are aware of > http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ and the page is also fairly > incomplete; http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DFSGLicences should > probably be merged into the former or integrated in some way.
I think that http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ is a mistake which should be removed or drastically changed. It divides debian-legal and has been a gift to those who always seek to criticise contributors on more than one occasion. Can you suggest more productive content? See also: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00521.html I stopped making the periodic summaries and no-one has complained yet. I don't think that communicating what -legal is discussing is very interesting to most debian people. I am keeping notes for my own sake at http://people.debian.org/~mjr/licences.html but I am even more suspicious of anonymous wiki users describing licences than I am of people who don't give enough references. Should the web site even just contain debian-legal user/developer/drafter FAQs? Hoping for swifter replies, -- MJR/slef -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]