[csw-maintainers] [POLICY] Policy-team, policy docs, licenses

[Peter FELECAN]

Sebastian Kayser <skayser at opencsw.org> writes:

> * Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
>> 2011/2/9 Maciej Blizi??ski <maciej at opencsw.org>:
>> > 2011/2/9 Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>:
>> >>
>> >> Most of our policies are already written up. You make it sound like we
>> >> are facing a choice of either writing hundreds of pages ourselves, or
>> >> copying wholesale from debian.
>> >> This is a false choice. Most of the policies we need, we already have
>> >> written up.
>> >
>> > Please point me at our abstract and copyright notice.
>> >
>> 
>> I did say "most", not "all".
>> 
>> But since you bring those things up:
>> Do we really *need* a copyright notice? Why? Are we deathly afraid
>> someone is going to "steal" our policies, and.... what, exactly?
>
> Is there any harm in having a license? No. So please focus on the
> relevant parts.
>
>> I'm also not sure what is the huge need for "an abstract". or even if
>> there is, why this is so difficult to do ourselves quickly and easily.
>> Going by
>> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/
>> their "abstract" consists of two lines, which basically say, "This is
>> the policy manual. Stuff in debian, needs to follow debian policy.".
>
> If you guys start to discuss whether the _abstract_ (i.e. not even
> actual policies) needs to be 2 or 5 lines long I feel that the policy
> team isn't off to a good start.

I agree with you. This is exactly what I'm afraid when such noise is
raised about 10 lines of text. Sterile divagation about license,
copying, patrimony, &c. This is clearly a policy of obstruction.
-- 
Peter