| 1 |
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> No-one is claiming that Paludis is an official Gentoo project. This |
| 3 |
> discussion, however, is about PMS, not Paludis, and the only reason I |
| 4 |
> can see to keep confusing them is political, so please stop doing that. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Sorry, the reason is not political. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Nor do I define the direction of PMS. The requirements define its |
| 9 |
> direction, and its contributors (the majority of which are Gentoo |
| 10 |
> developers) do the writing. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
But you appear to act as the project lead for PMS. I am only trying to |
| 13 |
understand this as someone who has just recently started getting up to |
| 14 |
speed on PMS. It honestly appears as if you are the project lead for |
| 15 |
PMS, and you speak as if you have authority for the PMS project, and |
| 16 |
you are not a Gentoo developer, yet you claim that PMS is an official |
| 17 |
Gentoo project? That is confusing to me. I am not trying to pick on |
| 18 |
you or harass you but I am seeing something that appears on the |
| 19 |
surface to be a clear violation of what I understand to be Gentoo |
| 20 |
policy. That's confusing to me. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> > Paludis does not have a Gentoo Foundation copyright, does PMS? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Not currently, but then neither does devmanual, so it's hardly unique |
| 25 |
> in that respect. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That also means that the devmanual and PMS are not (currently) |
| 28 |
official Gentoo projects. Any official Gentoo project needs to hold a |
| 29 |
Gentoo Foundation copyright and be released under the appropriate |
| 30 |
license - otherwise it is not being adequately protected. I would be |
| 31 |
extremely surprised if this policy has changed. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-Daniel |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives