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:
10 Mar 2005 01:42:20 -0000
Message-Id: <20050310014218.GC27314@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting doug jensen ####@####.####
> Trying to make it appear the you have the support of someone that has
> not participated in our discussion will not help.
You appear to be addressing someone else, as this is completely
nonresponsive to my post. (I'm not playing political "support" games.)
> As I originally said you have included misinformation in your postings.
Actually, allow me to refresh your memory:
Rick has introduced a FAIRLY HIGH AMOUNT of misinformation to this
sub-thread. Emma has indicated her intention to use the
information provided by Rick in the Author Guide, I would
like to know if that is still the case?
(Emphasis added.)
The "information by Rick" that Emma Jane might choose to incorporate in the
Author Guide did _not_ encompass who is the editor of
http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ or its subpages (or of
http://wiki.debian.net/?DFSGLicenses) -- that being simply not at issue.
Thus, you seem bogged down in irrelevancies, and thus my strong
suspicion that you prefer cheap rhetorical tricks to addressing the
actual subject.
To further refresh your memory, here is what I wrote that Emma Jane might
chose to "use in the Author Guide -- wrote very hurriedly, but did so
because Emma Jane asked me to:
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.
Now, I certainly could be mistaken. Thus my invitation that you
enlighten us on the _substance_ -- as opposed to trying to count coup on
irrelevancies. I'd like LDP to have accurate information. If it gets
that by correcting something I wrote, good!
> You asked if I was willing to defend that.
Substantiate, not defend. But yes. And we're all still waiting. Thus
my point. Please correct away, sir! The LDP can only benefit, if you
finally decide to do that.
But somehow I very much doubt you're trying to assist Emma Jane at all.
