On Du, 06 ian 13, 19:09:28, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 05:46:44PM +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > > > How would you organize setting up an authoritative and maintained list of > > verified DFSG-free licenses ? Which formal steps would need to be completed > > before an additional license or license version would be added to the list ? > > How to deal with mistakes on the list ? Do we have sufficient volunteers with > > sufficient legal knowledge to maintain such list ? Maybe this part should be > > dealt with further on debian-legal. > > Hold on :-) All you're discussing here already exists. FTP masters vet > software that enters the archive, de facto deciding whether the > associated licenses are DFSG free or not. I didn't want to imply that we > should change anything of that. We should rather consolidate the work > they do and index licenses, decisions, and rationales for such decisions > in a central place that people can look at. > > I haven't asked, but I suspect FTP masters have already enough on their > plates to be interested in doing the publishing/indexing work too. But > it's something that anyone can pick up, possibly agreeing on FTP masters > on a way of being notified of new decisions. As far as I know, when a software is rejected the Maintainer receives an e-mail notification. Assuming such message has at least minimal information and it is CCd somewhere public (e.g. the ITP bug or debian-legal) others could pick it up and propose a patch to w.d.o/legal/licenses to be acknowledged by ftpmasters. What do you think? Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature