MJ Ray wrote: > Jeremy Hankins proposed guidelines for writing summaries in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00227.html > > Following discussion on this list after recent unpleasantness, I would > like to propose replacing them with: > > 1) Draft summaries should be marked clearly and invite further > discussion. The same minimum discussion period applies as for a GR > (currently given in s4.2 of the constitution). If there are serious > objections to summarising, discussion should be allowed to continue > and be summarised later. After discussion, a second draft should be > posted and list members invited to send signed confirmation that it is > a representative view. > > 2) The first sentence clearly states the full name of the licence, the > version number and any software packaged or ITP'd for debian that is > under that licence, with links as appropriate. > > 3) Anything regarded by a consensus of debian-legal as a possible > problem meeting DFSG follows in list form, with reasons.
Disputed points should also be listed. "Some people think:... but others disagree, saying:..." It's only worth listing them if there are meaningful numbers of people on both sides (say, at least 3 each :-) Given the way debian-legal works, and the fact that people can't even agree on whether a disputed license should be considered free or non-free by default, I think this is a requirement to adequately represent the debian-legal process. Particularly on difficult licenses. > 4) Each reason should refer explicitly to the freedom that is > restricted, and how it is restricted. Link to relevant parts of the > included licence and illustrative posts from debian-legal and > elsewhere. > > 5) An optional section titled "Suggestions" follows the list of > reasons. It includes d-l's suggestions on how to resolve the > problem(s). If applicable, this should include any typographical, > clarity, or other minor problems that debian-legal recommends fixing > if a new version of the license is written. Again, link to > illustrative posts. > > 6) On archive copies, the confirming signatories should be listed. The > archiver should check signatures are good before listing them. > > 7) The full text of the license is included at the end. > > > Rationale: > > Point 1 is rewritten to make summaries a bit more robust against > misreporting of the type the MPL one had; 2 changed to discourage > headline condemnations and to show why debian-legal is interested > (merging the old 6) to counter accusations that we are a vigilante > sqad; 3 changed to give more general information; 4 changed to refer > back to the list (because I think summaries more useful if they give > references); 5 only has the advice to link added; the new 6 aims to > help readers verify whether a summary actually summarises consensus; 7 > is unchanged. > > > Process: > > There is no formal process to handle this proposal, I believe. Please > tell me if otherwise. > > I would welcome comments whether this would improve the summaries and > *especially* what regular contributors and past summarisers think of > it. If it's liked, I'll submit patches to > http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ in 2 weeks and probably ask for > help updating past summaries. Do it. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
