On 2004-08-09 06:17:17 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since February, -legal has had an "official" (as official as they get)
document claiming that even without further annoyances from X-Oz that
clause is non-free. Simon Law, who wrote that summary, has since
realized it was a huge mistake. That means something is wrong in the
way
we approach license analysis and summary writing.
I agree that something is wrong. Most recently, I mentioned and made
suggestions about this in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/thrd3.html#00334
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00334.html and part of
another subthread around
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00219.html
Sadly, I commit the same sin of poor referencing that I percieve as a
problem with the summaries. I think the "unpleasantness" was mostly
about the handling of the MPL threads that month and the month before.
My suggestion wasn't clearly liked, but I feel there wasn't much
participation. It seems that I don't have time to get discussion on
this. You seem to care about fixing summaries too: please can you take
it forwards?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL;
Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
