| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Debian Weekly News 2004/20Debian Weekly News 2004/20Posted May 19, 2004 18:32 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)In reply to: Debian Weekly News 2004/20 by piman Parent article: Debian Weekly News 2004/20
Can you point me to any language in the founding documents of Debian that make "the opinions of debian-legal" into a consitutional court? Can you also explain how the opinions of whichever random DD decides to post on debian-legal becomes official? Doesn't it take a vote of the developers to amend the Social Contract, of which the DFSG is a part? Certainly the debian-legal place is where people go to discuss boundary cases and figure out what the DFSG means, but it's not like the US legal system; otherwise aspiring debian-legal list members would have to spend years studying a contradictory body of past list postings to understand Debian Law. If Debian just wants to declare war with the FSF rather than attempting to figure out how to resolve any disputes in a constructive matter, and, as a result, an unacceptable-to-Debian GPLv3 results, then, unless Debian persuades all of the upstream developers, Debian will have to fork the entire toolchain: compiler, C library, assembler, linker, must of the programs in /bin. As a member of GCC's steering committee, I find myself in a bind. I agree that the GFDL has major flaws, as does the Affero Public License. But to make any progress, we need to stop calling names and throwing FUD around (and yes, speculation that the FSF might do something harmful with future licensing is most certainly spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt).
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||