Filipus Klutiero wrote: > 5. A request/demand that people concerned with specific patent issues > do not share their concerns, except with the contact point mentioned > in 3. > > [...] 5. is, however, anti-transparency, and IMO against > our ethics. Such a position statement cannot be made prior to > discussion. Since it looks like this wasn't discussed yet, I am hereby > lauching a public discussion on 5. This is not a poll, but I'd like to > see the opinions of others on it. and whether it is unanimous or not.
As I wrote in http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/02/msg00129.html I think it was discussed, so the above claim is a bit off, but a public discussion might be enlightening anyway. Also, can the DPL really not just issue this position statement as a "decision for whom noone else has responsibility"? I'm pretty sure the DPL procedure (such as it is) was followed: that zack solicited views and made a decision he felt to be consistent with the consensus. Personally, I'm uncomfortable with point 5, but I think I'm living in a country where legislation prohibits software patents and there isn't a specific increase in punishment if you might have read emails form a third party about a possible patent infringement (but I could be wrong). I think the request to focus patent topics on one contact point is to protect less fortunate developers: there are some, aren't there? In the USA with its crazy anti-free-enterprise software patent madness? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1sihlk-00061z...@petrol.towers.org.uk