On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:17:10 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote: [...] > In 2006, we had: > > - a resolution on the DFSG-free status of the GFDL Where the winning option legislated without *any explanation* that the DFSG issues of the GFDL (except for the invariant-like ones) do not exist. This resolution is doing more harm than good: it has been misinterpreted by many people as "Debian states the GFDL is OK", it sent a signal to FSF that there's no real need to fix those issues with the GFDL as they are considered acceptable anyway, it poses serious logical problems when one tries to reconcile its result with the DFSG, people has already tried to use it as a precedent to allow other non-free restrictions into main, ... See the following thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00098.html > - a resolution of the licensing problems preventing us from > distributing Java at all, including, eventually, legal advice > via SPI to that effect Resolution? Do you mean a GR, a vote? Am I missing anything? I don't recall any vote on this issue... Moreover the DLJ license affair was, IMHO, handled quite badly: every decision seemed to have been taken behind closed doors by very few people and communicated publicly only when it was too late for providing suggestions and advice. I was really worried by all that accepting licenses with contradictory FAQs and non-legally-binding clarifications. See the following thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00064.html > - DFSG-free updates to creative commons licenses Which we *did not* have, because CC licenses still fail to meet the DFSG, IMO. See the following threads: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00024.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00023.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/02/msg00059.html > - new draft of the GFDL resolving Debian's other concerns Which we *did not* have, since the first draft of the GFDL v2 does not solve all the GFDL issues which are not related to invariantness. See the following thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00123.html > - a resolution on how we approach sourceless firmware Which decided to ignore this issue for the release of etch (despite the opposite promise made with GR-2004-004) and was not respected anyway. See bug: http://bugs.debian.org/412950 > - Java licensed under the GPL Which could be seen as a positive effect of the DLJ mess, but it's still incomplete, AFAIUI. At least sun-java6 source package is still in the non-free archive, AFAICT. See http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/sun-java6 http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/s/sun-java6/sun-java6_6-00-2/copyright > - a recommendation to SPI on a free copyright license and > more free trademark handling for our logos that's since been > acted on, and is now just pending an announcement by the DPL Which actually *is* a little progress on the issue we were discussing in the present thread and is appreciated, as I said at the time. Unfortunately that move leaves the harder side of the issue (that is to say, trademark licensing) in a black-or-white situation (no trademark restrictions for one logo, non-free restrictions for the other logo), which is suboptimal. See the following thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/02/msg00012.html -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpZtrt_TA3HP.pgp
Description: PGP signature