Re: Validity of DFSG #10
Stefano Zacchiroli <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
Actually, don't they decide whether the *software* follows the DFSG?
They're not the DFLG, after all.
It is quite possible to use a licence that works fine for some other
software and botch it (I think there's a famous example where a
trademark licence is applied in tandem with the copyright one),
resulting in a fail.
That's why I phrased http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ as
"Licenses currently found..." rather than the inaccurate wording
used on many entries on http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
It's also why lists of "good" licenses have limited value.
> 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 think there have been at least three attempts to index them in the
past, but few seemed to care about them and so they gradually bitrot.
Even the DFSGLicenses wiki page was last edited 2012-08-16 and now
appears to be immutable.
Who wants this index? Who's willing to put the time in? I'd be happy
to help, although I won't lead another attempt.
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/