On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:45, MJ Ray wrote: > 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?
I have been going over that thread and thinking about it, but will probably need a few more days before I can come to any conclusions worthy of posting. One thing I find interesting, that you didn't mention in your changes (but you changed) and no one commented on is that your summary guidelines suggest a link back to the DFSG for all problems in clauses 3-4. The list of reasons in Jeremy Hankin's guidelines need not connect to the DFSG at all. -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
