discuss: Debian-free licenses was Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
Subject:
Re: Debian-free licenses was Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
5 Mar 2005 21:08:47 -0000
Message-Id: <20050305210845.GQ27314@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting Emma Jane Hogbin ####@####.####
> A great email, thanks!! (I hope you don't mind me not quoting it.) I haven't
> published the changes to the Author Guide yet. Just let me know what it
> should say with respect to Debian and I'll update it! It's true that I was
> duped by the webmaster. I don't understand where to go for the "official"
> word from Debian. (And I too am a Debian user. Love it, love them, don't
> love the stuff to do with licensing documentation it's just too murky for
> the number of hours in a day...if you know what I mean.)
Off the top of my head:
"Debian as a general rule devolves judgements about licensing to the
maintainers of individual packages. In theory, they apply the Debian
Free Software Guidelines (link) to such decisions. They are encouraged
but not required to consult views expressed on the debian-legal mailing
list (link), but then make up their own minds. Regardless, the upshot
would be to land your document in either the main or non-free package
collection, nothing worse."
I realise that's perhaps a little half-assed. One could go into the
exact nature of Debian governance, but I figure that would be WAY
outside our scope, here.
> Hopefully with a
> URL to include in the Author Guide to point people to the real story?
My personal apologies for being a slacker, here: I've been meaning to
create a set of Web pages, as neutrally worded as I can manage,
debunking the false impression those other Web pages create of voicing
Debian's official view and outlining how Debian's process _really_
works. But I haven't done that, yet.
> Even if it's just the package maintainer that's made the split I'd
> still like to know how the split works.
I can look up details (but am pressed for time at the moment): Each
Debian developer ( = package maintainer) gets schooled in Debian policy as
part of the New Maintainer process. That includes acquaintance with the
Policy Manual, the Debian Constitution, in-force general resolutions,
mastery of various technical requirements, etc. One of the
organisational documents (can't remember which one) advised the
developer to _consult_ with debian-legal on licensing/legal issues. But
that developer is nowhere obliged to take any particular action on the
basis of what he/she hears from those folk. The developer is sovereign
unless obliged by something that actually _is_ binding, e.g., a General
Resolution that passed. The debian-legal community's role is advisory
-- more or less by default, for lack of any other specified powers.
Thus, Web pages that purport to summarise (and link to) discussion on
debian-legal are _at best_ advisory. (As noted, I consider them
downright deceptive in effect, whether so intended or not.)
Realise, too, that nobody's required to have any particular sort of
credential, or even have any organisational connection to the Debian
Project, before airing opinions on debian-legal. Lest I be accused of
delusions of grandeur, I should cite _myself_ as an example: Although
I've aired some such opinions, myself, I've not gone through the New
Maintainer process, and thus am not among the 1000+ Debian developers
who could be considered the "citizens" (voting constituents) of the
Debian polity.
There are people on debian-legal whose views are probably more
persuasive than others', e.g., Branden Robinson's. However, in a formal
sense, even the view of a noted Debian developer on debian-legal
inherently is not any sort of statement from the Debian Project as a
whole, and is binding on no one.
--
Cheers,
Rick Moen Magnus frater spectat te.
####@####.####
