On 2004-01-25 16:40:38 +0000 Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
That's two and neither has authority to provide *advance approval*
for a
new license. [...]
If -legal agree the licence is free, then I suspect ftpmaster is
unlikely to bounce it when shown the discussion. If it gets in the
first time, that's no promise that it wasn't a buggy review. We might
spot an unnoticed problem later. One of the strengths of debian-legal
seems to be the ability to revisit old mistakes and fix them, IMO.
That happens when things get refused in error or confusion, too.
That's far better than making errors and then defending them beyond
the point of absurdity.
The speed of lawyers is a problem and it would be nice to see
questionable things shown to debian-legal before they are used in
anger. I don't see how we can speed the lawyers up, though. If you
just want to document some advice for people drawing up licences about
how they can use debian-legal, please go for it and work with those of
us who are interested.
Maybe ftpmaster could be encouraged to make more public statements to
groups like apache, but I think they're pretty busy already, so I can
understand why they might not.
Not quite and not quiet. I just took for granted that there was not a
one-to-one mapping between non-non-free and "free software".
Huh?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
