* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-19 15:10]: > > Last time I suggested that -legal should engage in more active > > arbitration with upstream > > Where precisely did you make this suggestion?
I had the discussion about the OLS in mind in which I asked whether anyone had tried talking to the author of the license [0] and you responded that "as a rule, the -legal mavens don't unilaterally approach the authors of works or licenses". You also added that the "affected package maintainer is generally a person better suited to do so" [1]. (I see now that I might have misinterpreted your description of the status quo of -legal as your personal opinion.) Anyway, I agree that package maintainers are often in a better situation to talk to their upstreams about changing to another license. On the other hand, package maintainers often haven't followed -legal and don't have the best arguments available; help from -legal or summaries of licenses pointing out the problematic points would be helpful here. However, what I had in mind in my original message [0] was not talking to upstream authors of software to change to another license but talking to the authors of software licenses. While it's good to have upstream software change from a non-free to a DFSG free license, if the license itself remains non-free other people might use it. I feel that it might be more effective to get the license itself changed. I realize that the author of a license might subscribe to a different philosophy and might not be interested in changing it, but I think explaining our point of view and philosophy to them and why we consider the license problematic would be helpful. Maybe we'll achieve a change, at least in some cases. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/10/msg00175.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/10/msg00195.html -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
