Josh Triplett writes: >Steve McIntyre wrote: >> Again, you're exaggerating this. Some license clauses are clearly, >> unambiguously not free. Others are not. If we've seen several >> variations along the same theme where there is a clear consensus that >> such a thing is non-free, _that's_ when I'm saying we should mention >> it. Maybe as an example of a common bad license clause, whatever. > >What about the ones that don't directly relate to a DFSG point, but are >not "clearly, unambiguously not free" to everyone?
Then they clearly need more discussion and probably, eventually a vote to get consensus. But if we can streamline some of the discussion/argument here by updating the DFSG, that will help. >> pass, or a simple majority of the small number of self-selecting >> interested posters to debian-legal, many of whom are not DDs? That's >> the point I've been trying to make for a long time here. > >I would tend to say a supermajority consensus on debian-legal, with the >ability for the project as a whole to override such a decision with a >GR, based on sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.2 of the Debian Constitution. I >suspect that such an ability would rarely be used, considering that it >would be easier to simply get the developers who would vote for such a >GR to help you argue your case on debian-legal. > >Note also that debian-policy is basically self-selecting (albeit with a >more formal process), and it seems to work fine. > >As for some debian-legal members not being developers :), that is an >issue to consider as well. On the one hand, many contributors to >debian-legal are not DDs. On the other hand, we don't really want >single-shot opinion mails from people uninterested in rational >discussion. I would tend to say that if it became necessary to adopt a >formal process, then it would have to be limited to DDs, while if the >process remained semi-informal like it is now, then all contributors >would probably be included in the informal "do we have consensus" check. I'm just not at all impressed by the the semi-informal "consensus" check. But you probably guessed that already. :-) The problem I have is that I've seen far too many summaries and consensus claims posted here recently which have been clearly bogus. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I suspect most samba developers are already technically insane... Of course, since many of them are Australians, you can't tell." -- Linus Torvalds
