[I accidentally sent this as a private reply earlier this morning
before Phil's message.]
TL;DR: you don't have any recourse that is appropriate for this
situation.
All the hammers are bigger than your nail.
>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> writes:
Andreas> Hi folks, before I follow the advise how to refer a
Andreas> question to the CTTE[1] I'm wondering whether licensing
Andreas> questions are also a topic here. I admit I'm a bit unsure
Andreas> whether this minor issue about a license is really worth
Andreas> that even more people spent time into it. I'm demotivated
Andreas> myself by no progress in something I would consider
Andreas> nitpicking about a non-issue. But I would like to use this
Andreas> as a general example to know whether CTTE could be of help
Andreas> in licensing questions.
The secretary ruled that the CT cannover overrule a delegate acting in
their delegated responsibility,
so no the CT cannot overrule ftpmaster.
The CT could give advice to ftpmaster, especially if ftpmaster requested
that advice.
I'd expect the CT would be reluctant to give non-technical advice.
The CT could set *technical policy* and I'd expect delegates would
generally be expected to follow reasonable technical policy established
by the CT or be accountable to the DPL and membership at large.
However, I don't really think that license standards are technical
enough to be technical policy.
ftpmaster could establish an appeals procedure.
The DPL could establish another set of delegates for setting license
policy and separate that out from the ftpmaster delegation.
I.E. someone sets license policy, and ftpmaster interprets it.
That said, some questions could not be separated.
In particular, because of liability concerns, if ftpmaster believes
something is not redistributable, it would be highly inappropriate to
ask them to redistribute it in the current Debian liability model.
Any of this could be handled by a GR.
