Re: New Debian Website License [LAST CHANCE]
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 08:54:30AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia said:
> > I think it was intended for this clause to be nonbinding "requested and
> > strongly recommended" - but not required. I think it's a good
> > recommendation. But you're right - it's not always possible to meet this
> > term with ease (or at all) and that's why it's best left as a
> > recommendation, not a requirement.
> We'll leave it as a recommendation not a requirement then. So it would
> be "please do this, but if you cannot then you're still ok under the license."
> Now about the two options (Section VI)
> I'm thinking that we don't need either of them. Certainly option B would
> cause problems as I think it would mean it is not DFSG-free.
> Actually A would probably make it not DFSG-free too.
> Is the Debian legal people, Debian webmasters and SPI board happy with
> replacing the web pages with something like:
> Copyright (c) 1997- 2000 by SPI Inc. This material may be distributed only
> subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License,
> Draft v1.0 or later (the latest version is presently available at
Speaking as both a member of the webmaster team AND a member of the SPI
board (but to say I am speaking FOR either entity)...
I don't like the "or later" clause... I don't like it with the GPL, either.
It gives away too much control incase someone get's a wild bug and decides
the OPL (or GPL) should prohibit armenians (as an example) from distributing
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
* http://benham.net/index.html <firstname.lastname@example.org> <>< *
* Debian: Software in the Public Interest: *
* Project Secretary Treasurer *
* Webmaster Team *
* BTS Team siteROCK: *
* Lintian Team Linux Infrastructure Engineer *