Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]
Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> Well-meaning authors that would like to choose a license that makes
> their software DFSG-free. [...]
Well-meaning authors can go look at similar packages already
in main and check the copyright file. That would be much better
advice, IMO. Actually, the copyright files are all linked from
packages.debian.org now.
If anyone thinks it's a good idea to generate indexes from
copyright files, I'm happy to help, but I don't have a local
debian mirror to play with.
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Here's an interesting point - where summaries are required, they
> > have happened outside the "DLS" series. The two most commonly
> > referred to (FDL and CC 2.0) are not DLS.
> Maybe because they have happened *before* the "DLS" series started (I'm
> referring to the GFDL ones; the CC 2.0 summary is a different story).
CC 2.0 was definitely not before DLS. I'll take your word on the
FDL/DLS timing. The 1997 DLS date shown on the web is clearly fake.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks.
Reply to: