Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy

To be clear, my concern about a summarization process is less "honesty", and more simply basic competence :) If anything, I think centralizing most documentation in 1-2 places rather than throughout a thread would make it much easier to sniff out bad faith - it'd be much more apparent in the summar

Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy

Pamela, I think that this would introduce a constant source of tension and more argument. And I hear we have enough of that :-) I sympathize with Luis' unease in this case. Thanks Bruce On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:39 PM Pamela Chestek wrote: > I was thinking that the public nature of th

Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:33 PM Richard Fontana < richard.font...@opensource.org> wrote: > I have a different concern that goes to the political nature of > license proposals. If the submitter is responsible for maintaining the > PEP document, how can bias be avoided or minimized in the content o

Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy

On 3/20/2019 3:32 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > I have a different concern that goes to the political nature of > license proposals. If the submitter is responsible for maintaining the > PEP document, how can bias be avoided or minimized in the content of > the document? Even if one relies on a non

Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy

Does it help to make the document maintainer more than one person? Or hinder? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

Re: [License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy

I have a different concern that goes to the political nature of license proposals. If the submitter is responsible for maintaining the PEP document, how can bias be avoided or minimized in the content of the document? Even if one relies on a non-submitter volunteer somehow, in many cases third-part

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:34 PM John Cowan wrote: > > It doesn't happen to be true under the GDPR either. Recital (i.e. official > opinion) 62 (online at ) says that > the processor need not provide information that the data subject already > has. You alread

Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:35 PM VanL wrote: > [Initially replied just to Henrik; resending to whole list. Thanks, > Henrik, for catching that!] > Two points. First, and as I hope will become clearer after this email, the > CAL and GDPR have different scopes, so it is appropriate to have a > diffe