On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 20:49:02 +0000 (UTC) Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2013-01-08, Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Has the Open Web Foundation Contributor License Agreement Version 1.0 > > licensed been reviewed for DFSG compatibility? I don't see it on these > > pages: > > I read it as a Contributor License Agreement, and thus is only relevant > if you want to upstream your patches. It definitely looks like it, yes. > > Some people might call it obnoxius. Some people wont touch packages > where upstream requires a CLA. But as such, it doesn't influence the > free-ness of the source code. This seems to be correct, at least to me. But there's something unclear going on here: the debian/copyright file of the opendmarc package states [...] | As of the date shown at the top right of this page, the Contributors | have made this Specification available under the Open Web Foundation | Contributor License Agreement Version 1.0, which is available at: | http://www.dmarc.org/cla.html [...] and then quotes the CLA. Well, if I understand correctly, we are talking about some document which is a specification (I guess it is /usr/share/doc/opendmarc/draft-dmarc-base-00-02.txt.gz shipped by binary package opendmarc). Which (copyright) license is this document released under? This is not clear to me: it's clear that any contributor have made their contributions available *to* the Open Web Foundation under the CLA, but it's unclear which (copyright) license has been chosen *by* the Open Web Foundation to release the document *to the public*. I would say that this license is what is relevant to answer the important question "does draft-dmarc-base-00-02.txt.gz comply with the DFSG?". -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpbY2p196VMd.pgp
Description: PGP signature