Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
On Aug 4, 2004, at 17:00, Rob Lanphier wrote:
Brandon,
[You sent this to a public mailing list, debian-legal@lists.debian.org,
so I assume you want replies from people other than Branden.]
The process as it exists now is not at all unlike the IETF working
group
process. The main difference is that, while the debian-legal list
functions like an IETF working group list at first, there's not a clean
process for getting to closure.
There isn't really a process for getting closure because we realize
that we have, in the past, certainly made mistakes; and we want to, if
new arguments arise, revisit past decisions.
However, there is actually a formal procedure for accepting and
challenging debian-legal decisions. debian-legal is actually an
advisory body which advises the ftp-masters. The ftp-masters, delegated
to do so by the DPL under the Debian Constitution, actually decide what
may be in the archive, and in which section.
So, it is actually ftp-masters who decide if something is free. They
just come here for advice.
There is also an appears procedure to override the ftp-masters'
decisions; that procedure is spelled out in the Constitution. I just
woke up, so don't quote me on this, but I think it takes a majority
vote of the developers.
We've heard a long list of grievances with the RPSL 1.0, and it's
difficult to tease out which ones are showstoppers, and which ones are
"nice to haves".
If we (debian-legal) endeavored to do an analysis of the license, and
post a clear summary, would that help?
* License-incompatible forking. Our business model is predicated on
dual-licensing of the source code. RPSL insures that we can continue
to
reincorporate outside modifications into our dual-licensed codebase.
I'm not sure if requiring that is something -legal would consider a
free license.
However, we certainly don't have a problem if you only accept patches
which give you that permission. You mention below some other projects
which do that; I'd like to add Best Practical (request-tracker) to the
list as well, now.
* Use, modification, or distribution by parties that wish to bring
patent lawsuits against us.
If you want this to be a defensive-only clause, I think we (-legal) are
ok with that. We're generally less-ok with it when it would prohibit me
from counter-suing if Real sued me first, or when it'd prohibit patent
claims against parties other than Real.
Reply to: