On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 03:31:50PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > The facts are: [...] > - ldp-es has been in the archive for some time (2 years) [2] Debian has no grandfather clause. If ldp-es has DFSG-non-free components in it, they must be removed or the entire package dropped or moved to non-free (depending on what permissions are granted by the licensing on it). > Several legal issues here: > > 1.- Only GULP has an authorisation which can be trusted (digitally signed) > regarding translation. There is no need of one for LPG however. Debian does not generally require copyright licenses to be digitially signed for us to recongize their legitimacy. I expect we would only require one if there were known problems with deliberately fraudulent copyright notices and or licenses being promulgated in the Free Software community. I know of no such thing ever happening. (One reason may be that the laws of most countries regard doing so as a criminal offense; in the U.S. you can be fined up to $2,500 for doing so.) > 2.- GULP has a non-DFSG license (this I failed to see). So you agree that there is a problem? > Questions: > . Are we going to ask for 1)? (this was not the reason why it was > rejected but I want to bring it up on -legal) In my opinion such a requirement is not necessary, and to my knowledge it would be unprecedented in the Debian Project. > . If the GULP translators changed the license to be DFSG-free, would the > translation be allowed into main? (notice that the package was REJECTED due > to the *original* document not being DFSG-free, it said nothing on the > translation). Both the original GULP and the translation need to be DFSG-free. If the original GULP is DFSG-free, anyone can produce a translation in any language. If the licensing on the existing Spanish translation of GULP is non-DFSG-free and cannot be changed, a new Spanish translation could be made from scratch. As long as the existing Spanish translation were not plagaiarized, there should be no problem. If the original GULP is not DSFG-free, I cannot see any way that the document or any translation of it could possibly be allowed in main. The non-freeness of the original document would prevent any translation from being DFSG-free, as I understand U.S. copyright law. -- G. Branden Robinson | People are equally horrified at Debian GNU/Linux | hearing the Christian religion branden@debian.org | doubted, and at seeing it http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | practiced. -- Samuel Butler
Attachment:
pgpyqSI90cvQs.pgp
Description: PGP signature