Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:08:17AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Indeed, they will bear the *primary* liability. However if legal action > > is taken against them or our mirror operators because of their decision, > > the whole distribution process might suffer, affecting all developers > > and users. > > Er, of course we all might be affected by it, but the ftpmasters would be > affected *way* more by getting sued than *we* would be affected by their > getting sued, so I think it's ridiculously presumptuous to criticize the > ftpmasters for lack of transparency here instead of trying to support them > to make good decisions.
Actually, the ftpmasters are unlikely to get sued, simply because they probably don't have that much money. It is much more likely that companies sponsoring parts of the mirror network would get sued (e.g. Brainfood). That puts a heavy burden upon the ftpmasters. Announcing an ITP and referring questionable licenses to debian-legal relieves some of that burden, because then the license is subjected to far greater analysis by a larger group of people. Since the ftpmasters decided not to do that, it is appropriate to complain about their ineptness in analysing the license. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
