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. 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. 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. 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; maybe an _objective_ weekly/monthly summary of discussions would help too. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten." -- Malcolm Ray