On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Henning Makholm wrote:
> It needs to be anounced somewhere, but there is not really any
> "user's guide to debian-legal" where it would logically fit, is
> there?
We probably should write up something like that... possible with
guidelines and/or examples of summaries.
> Shoul
Scripsit Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-12 00:01]:
> > Hmm.. do we really need to have a single person charged with writing
> > all of the summaries?
> No, I think we just need vounteers who step in in a particular
> d
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> (2) The summary is posted to the list, asking if it's a good summary.
> (3) If consensus is that it's a good summary, it's sent on to the person
> asking for advice.
Hm, if we don't trust the summarizer to correctly judge the consensus
in the origi
Don Armstrong said on Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:38:04AM -0800,:
> In theory, it might be usefull, but there is a significant difference
> between the OSD and the DFSG: the OSD is a definition, whereas the
> DFSG is a guideline. This has poses interesting aspects for how we
> interpret licenses l
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> OSI guidelines are very similar to ours (they based from our DFSG).
> It would interessting to find the differences and see if we should
> update our DFSG.
In theory, it might be usefull, but there is a significant difference
between the OSD and t
Matt Palmer wrote:
>Hands up anyone who wants to take on the job of official d-legal summariser.
Heh.
>I can think of a few people who *could* take the job, unfortunately, those
>qualified also tend to be those most qualified in other areas.
Branden would do an *excellent* job. He's probably to
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:
* Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-13 04:09]:
Hm, that would involve somebody monitoring the OSI lists, because an
Are the OSI lists public (sorry, cannot check, I'm off-line at the
moment waiting for my plane to Malaga)? Is anyon
* Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-13 04:09]:
> Hm, that would involve somebody monitoring the OSI lists, because an
Are the OSI lists public (sorry, cannot check, I'm off-line at the
moment waiting for my plane to Malaga)? Is anyone from -legal
following them already?
> unsolicited
* Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-12 00:01]:
> > Of course, perhaps the best thing for -legal to do is have people
> > self-nominate themselves to this position, and then have a small
> > vote.
>
> Hmm.. do we really need to have a single person charged with writing
> all of the summa
* Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-12 09:17]:
> Hands up anyone who wants to take on the job of official d-legal summariser.
> I
> can think of a few people who *could* take the job, unfortunately, those
> qualified also tend to be those most qualified in other areas.
>
> I certainly
* Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-11 18:01]:
> I'm willing to take on a position to summarize our discussions,
> and present them to upstream. I think I can do this diplomatically, and
> I have some experience with this. (I was responsible for ironing out
Thanks.
--
Martin Michlma
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BTW, he didn't actually write any of the quoted text...
> Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> - Someone brings license to d-l, short discussion ensues with rapid
>> c
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm a bit unclear at this point what problem we're trying to solve. To
> date, I think there are four potentially interesting cases:
> - Someone brings license to d-l, short discu
Scripsit "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm said:
> > D. When you volunteer to summarize, select a random 6-digit integer
> >as a "priority" and write it in your email. If several people
> >volunteer without seeing each other volunteering, the one with the
> >highest num
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-12 01:03]:
>> It would be hard to preserve that attitude if we were to begin to
>> contact authors unsolicited. It would be very bad publicity for
>> Debian and for the free-softwa
Henning Makholm said:
> D. When you volunteer to summarize, select a random 6-digit integer
>as a "priority" and write it in your email. If several people
>volunteer without seeing each other volunteering, the one with the
>highest number wins the responsibility. (This will break the ti
Scripsit Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> People _want_ OSI to certify their licenses, but Debian/DFSG currently
> is not as important in this regard as OSI. Most people won't come to
> us to make sure a license is DFSG compliant as long as it is OSI
> compliant. He
* Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-12 01:03]:
> Usually, when we talk to upstream authors, we try to be careful not to
> sound as if we think that we can *demand* that they change their
> license. We try to stress that the upstream author is perfectly
> allowed to set non-free terms for
Scripsit Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And, as mentioned before, I'll like -legal to be more proactive and
> talk to upstream authors of licenses instead of waiting for them to
> contact us.
Usually, when we talk to upstream authors, we try to be careful not to
so
Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Of course, perhaps the best thing for -legal to do is have
> people self-nominate themselves to this position, and then have a small
> vote.
Hmm.. do we really need to have a single person charged with writing
all of the summaries? As far as I can se
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 09:14:06PM +,
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:
> I'd like to hear what other people from -legal think. I'm certainly
> not going to appoint anyone without the consent of -legal since this
> is just not the way it can work. But perhaps we can find a solut
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 09:14:06PM +, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-24 11:17]:
> > Specifically, I suggest:
> >
> > 1. a single place where review requests should be sent
> > 2. review requests are posted to debian-legal for
* Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-24 11:17]:
> Specifically, I suggest:
>
> 1. a single place where review requests should be sent
> 2. review requests are posted to debian-legal for general discussion
> 3. an official entity, either a committee or a trusted individual who is
>
On Jan 25, 2004, at 13:19, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
I wasn't asking for anything binding, maybe advance approval is not
quite the right word. Obviously, a patent or some other problem could
easily chuck some piece of software into non-free.
We've found several times that it can take a while to
Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Better assurance that Debian will find a license acceptable when applied
>to software and a coordinated way for Debian to provide feedback on
>licenses under development means that Debian can have a greater impact
>on licenses under development and much le
On Jan 24, 2004, at 14:17, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
However, while debian-legal is a useful forum for discussing the merits
of licenses and possible incompatibilities, an outside group like
Apache
doesn't seem to be able to get a definitive opinion about licenses
under
development. This puts De
On 2004-01-25 16:40:38 + Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
That's two and neither has authority to provide *advance approval*
for a
new license. [...]
If -legal agree the licence is free, then I suspect ftpmaster is
unlikely to bounce it when shown the discussion. If it gets in
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> However, while debian-legal is a useful forum for discussing the
> merits of licenses and possible incompatibilities, an outside group
> like Apache doesn't seem to be able to get a definitive opinion
> about licenses under development.
In this particul
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What I was saying that if advance approval was the practice,
> Advance approval will never happen in any form that I think you'd find
> useful. If we "advance approved" something it would mean that we cound
> not act if we later discovered a non-fre
Scripsit Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What I was saying that if advance approval was the practice,
Advance approval will never happen in any form that I think you'd find
useful. If we "advance approved" something it would mean that we cound
not act if we later discovered a non-free facet
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We have an opinion - the DFSG. Anything beyond that is mere noise.
Well, that's the problem. External free software projects can read and
interpret the DFSG, but that doesn't provide much assurance that their
software won't end up in non-free and ev
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:17:26AM -0800, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> However, while debian-legal is a useful forum for discussing the merits
> of licenses and possible incompatibilities, an outside group like Apache
> doesn't seem to be able to get a definitive opinion about licenses under
> developme
As an observer of both the Debian and Apache licensing discussions
surrounding the development of the Apache 2.0 license, I wanted to make
a suggestion regarding the Debian legal review of licenses. It seems
like groups like the ASF want to work with Debian when revising
licenses.
However, while
33 matches
Mail list logo
