On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what > > answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of > > some DDs. Anyway, we probably need some questions about the more > > interesting things like patent termination clauses or > > copyright-enforced trademarks (debian logo?), as they are pretty > > common problems. I'll have to let some of the gurus give good examples > > to start, but I'll help if I can. > > I find it appalling that believe you think that some answers to 5a and 6 > should not be accepted. Do you think Debian is some elite club where > only certain opinions should be accepted?
Yes. That's the whole point of the NM process. If this were not true then it would be unnecessary. The following is an example of an unacceptable opinion for a Debian applicant: > 5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily discussed > on debian-legal recently. Read > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and > briefly explain how you feel about the including documents > licensed under the FDL in main and what consequences of this > position might be for Debian. Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
