On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:06:39AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > > > > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what > > > > answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of > > > > some DDs. Anyway, we probably need some questions about the more > > > > interesting things like patent termination clauses or > > > > copyright-enforced trademarks (debian logo?), as they are pretty > > > > common problems. I'll have to let some of the gurus give good examples > > > > to start, but I'll help if I can. > > > > > > I find it appalling that believe you think that some answers to 5a and 6 > > > should not be accepted. Do you think Debian is some elite club where > > > only certain opinions should be accepted? > > > > Yes. That's the whole point of the NM process. If this were not true > > then it would be unnecessary. > > I thought the point was to find technically competent people to > contribute to Debian.
No, it's to stop incompetent people from getting into Debian. We wouldn't need an NM process for the reverse, we'd just accept anybody. > > The following is an example of an unacceptable opinion for a Debian > > applicant: > > > > > 5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily > > > discussed on debian-legal recently. Read > > > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and > > > briefly explain how you feel about the including documents licensed > > > under the FDL in main and what consequences of this position might > > > be for Debian. > > > > Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main. > > That's a poor answer because the applicant clearly doesn't understand > the issues involved. Debian of course cannot legally do that. > > That said, I fully agree with that opinion. Dealing with licenses is > cumbersome, time consuming, and largely a waste of time. If it were up > to me, there would be no licenses and copyrights. Everything would just > be free. Does that mean I don't belong in Debian, simply because I have > little desire to scrutinize licenses? There's a difference between a vague preference, and an opinion that we should actually do it. Note that this one also implies the DFSG should be scrapped. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
