[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: MaintainerDatabase Copyright

> Mark> Well, I hope they're going to ask everyone again, because I
> Mark> answered the first questionnaire, and I don't want my entry to
> Mark> be included if it's going to be non-free.
> 	Your wish to refuse permission is duly noted. Your data shall
>  not be included in the report from now on.

Aw, come on!  This is getting too silly.  All the database is supposed
to be is a list of maintainers with some additional information stored
in a convenient place so it can be updated.  It doesn't need an elaborate
license agreement.

I only brought up the security and privacy issues in the first place 
because I though it would also be convenient to collect the information
needed for maintainer verification at the same time -- and I am sure that
we need to know more for that purpose than should be made publicly 
available.  Of course, none of this information has been collected as
part of the survey so far;  so there aren't any _real_ security or
privacy issues yet.

Putting a non-free license on maintainer info released to the public is
silly -- because that means we cannot distribute it inside a package
in the main distribution.  I was quite happy with the GPL.  Actually,
if we didn't have a license, this would automatically be classified as
non-copyright, public domain material anyways because it is just a
database gleaned from public sources (like sports scores or telephone 


 - Jim  

Attachment: pgptdDUp6VKjU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: