Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm > They do not need to.
No, there's no absolute *need* to do that, or to follow any of the other directions in debian policy, but it's usually seen as good practice and developers usually take a dim view of such needless problem-making. > >really surprised that the archive maintainers felt no need to consult > >developers about this licence, in public or private, or SPI, before > >agreeing to indemnify Sun so broadly. > They do not need too. That doesn't change my surprise at them going off at half-cock about such a weighty responsibility. [...] > >-legal seems to have believed what Sun says their license means, namely > debian-legal is just a mailing list and does not hold beliefs. FWIW, I agree. Anthony Towns was personifying it in the section to which I replied and I wished to make my point in similar language. I didn't notice anyone correcting his original post when I wrote that. Actually, I still can't see such a correction. Maybe, just maybe, the meaning was bleeding obvious to everyone else. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
