On Sun, 2006-24-09 at 12:06 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Worse, the PDF description of the parallel distribution amendment appears > to describe an amendment which is less restrictive than necessary for > Debian's purposes (see comment 11). (Proper parallel distribution requires > the unencumbered to be distributed to every recipient of the encumbered: > though not technically "with" the encumbered, it's effectively the same, > and that's not mentioned in the response.) Given this (mis)interpretation, > I would probably oppose such an amendment too. :-/ If there is a mistake there, it is probably my fault. I'm confused as to why the unencumbered version must be _distributed_ to each recipient, rather than just _made available_ to each recipient. (I differentiate here between packaging the two versions inseparably together, versus putting the unencumbered version on a public Web site, say.) I believe it's immaterial to the DFSG-compatibility of the license, but I wonder why you think it's required for "proper" parallel distribution otherwise. > > Hence, it seems that CC refuses to disclose the intended meaning of the > > clause... > > I think the plaintext meaning should be assumed unless the licensor > specifies otherwise (reference UW-Pine case), and we know that the > plaintext meaning allows "parallel distribution". (Of course, if there > is a court case, we'd have to defer to that, but until there is, I'd > go by the plain meaning.) My guess is that Mia's response is a political one. Their international affiliates have opposed additional parallel distribution language; we've said that the language in the 3.0 draft may be enough to allow parallel distribution anyways. Rather than getting them upset, she's given us a barely-qualified yes. I think we should take our victory as gracefully and discreetly as we can. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part