Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
Given this:
> From: Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:21:54 +0100
> Cc: Debian Ocaml Maint ML <debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org>
>
> I get an answer from O'Reilly, they told me that in their opinion the
> reported notice (i.e. the text they want to appear in the debian package
> that I reported in the first mail) is enough to meet the DFSG
> requirement.
>
> They also ...
One thing we could do is this:
- Get O'Rielly to send us, in writing, signed, a simple unambiguous
statement that assures us that their conditions for distribution of
this document conforms with the DFSG, and that any interpretation
of their written license terms, no matter how faithful to the text
they might seem, which disagrees with this, are incorrect.
Eg:
We (O'Rielly) assure you our terms for distribution of [this
document] conform with the requirements of the DFSG. Any
interpretation of our distribution terms, no matter how
faithful to the text they might seem, which are inconsistent
with this assurance, are incorrect.
Signed: __John_J._Authorized_O'Rielly_Representative__
- Include a copy of their statement in the debian/copyright file for
the package.
- Put the package in main.
If there is a contradiction in what they say (ie if their license
seems to us not in fact consistent with the DFSG even though they
think it is) and some disagreement about it went to court, these
ambiguities would be resolved in the user's favor. This is according
to a very sensible legal princple embodied in the UCC and also in
Common Law: O'Rielly is using a lawyer and Debian isn't, so if
O'Rielly makes a contradition it's their fault.
(It is worth noting that books are different from software, and it's
not unreasonable on the face of it for O'Rielly to want to be the sole
paper publisher of a document while allowing unlimited distribution in
forms that don't require expensive printing presses. This is
something we might want to discuss in general terms on debian-legal.
But in this particular case it seems to me that it's their problem,
not ours. O'Rielly has real lawyers to protect their interests, and
if these lawyers do a bad job, for instance by not carefully reading
the DFSG, that's too bad for O'Rielly.)
Reply to: